₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
When i state that somebody is deluded that is no insult: it is a diagnosis -

Good. From henceforth, do not take offence at any term I use in diagnosing your predicament. On the same plane, it would not be considered an insult, but simply a 'diagnosis'.

And an eminently objective one, if that person is looking at Olumba Olumba and declaring him to be the Uncaused Cause of all existence.

Is that what Trinitarians have been doing? You're more conceitedly deluded than I had thought - that's just a 'diagnosis'.

Because patently there is no discernible difference between the Olumba follower and yourself.

Nope, there is a huge difference. That was why I had not been taken by surprise by your drama.

Both of you are worshippers of fellow human beings.

Like Olumba Olumba claimed to be at par with Christ in the Scriptures? Are you again smoking what is not in the books??

An alarming and regrettable disposition.

Your loss, not mine.

I do have a Psychiatrist friend whose attentions you both might require especially as he would render his services to you free of Charge as a favour to me.

You've been visiting that psychiatrist friend far too long to have noticed the damage he's done to you. My advice is that you change from his 'free services' and seek proper help for your dementia.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Abeg, you just dont want to admit that there are atheists whose ways are actually more godly than some theists.

There are atheists I know who live far more credible lives than deists - no gainsaying that. However, please show me any atheist who predicates his living or ethics on "godliness". Please just show me. Your penchant to lie to the public on any "resemblance" is magically amazing!

And that's what this boils down to.

No, it boils down to an exposé on your duplicity. Nothing more than that.

In relation to the Buddhist discourse (so others are not flung off the subject) the emphatic point is that a person practicing the essentials of Buddhism may very well live up to all the expectations of even your own christ as nobly encoded within the Beatitudes.

Matthew 5:8-9 is an example - "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." What is the 'God' that the Buddhist believes in, when you have openly tried to goon the atheist in your OP by stating: "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"?? You DeepSight are a very funny conceited fellow.

What manner of chicanery will prevent you from admitting that simple fact: preferring to dribble about on definitions!

It is your own chicanery on display here, if after you had openly told readers that Buddhism does not make reference to God, but at the same time you're loking to recruit atheists to be better worshippers of 'God'. A forked-tongued underhandedness was on display right from the onset of your OP, you didn't notice?

Deep Sight:
Oh there are plenty of parallels. They both came teaching God and repentance. Thay both outrightly assert that they are not God.

Where did Jesus "assert" that He was not God?

And this is how you keep discourses 'clean' -

Deep Sight:
You might want to address this same question to the deluded Trintarian lot who also insist that a similar fellow who lived in Galilee a while back is also Almighty God.

Deep Sight:
I cannot recall any such pertinent questions: I invite you to please refer me to them and I will reflect on them sincerely.

How bodi na?

You have never tried to reflect on anything. Is that same thread by karo93 suddenly gone missing? Please go there and see what you categorically ignored. Also see post #260 where I previously called your attention in bold - {"If you had sought to sanely discuss, what would have prevented you from considering the pointers to the Deity of Christ that have been posted? Why did you categorically ignore all those verses, just as karo93 tried to duck them and then scooted away from the same thread he proposed this argument?"}.

Deep Sight:
YOU SIR - love to complicate things unduly. Especially when you are shying away from answering a dead-on simple question.

What and which questions have I not addressed, mr deep duplicity? On the contrary, after I'd addressed your miserly pretences here, I left you a simple enquiry which I would have to wait forever to see you address.

Simple question I asked was - and I will rephrase it yet again to please your eminence -

Is it possible for an Atheist to live a life that is pleasing to the God that YOU believe in?

Does an atheist believe in ANY 'God'? What is wrong with your OOI?

Haba. Simple question. Stop running around and screaming define this, define that; when that which should be defined has been clearly defined already. If the question is so frightening for you, just say so and pass on jaare.

The question I left you - would it send you to your mortuary? Why are you damn too scared to address it?

Remember the parable of the good samaritan?

Yes. I knew you would try something else when your attempt to pull the rug from under readers here does not work.

Deep Sight:
Oh come on guys, cut me some slack!

Aside from debating issues we are also here to catch some fun dont you know?!!!

Just trying to catch my fun!

Besides if I registered as a new user and began to interact with you guys insisting I was a different person, there's no biggie in your trying to unmask me. No biggie at all.

Your constant harping on irrelevant issues is boring - not fun. You can go ahead and create a new ID to catch all the fun in your deep end; but you have turned aside on this issue to very petty complaints as if that is the real biggy at the end of the day. Please.

Deep Sight:
Foretelling something is quite another thing altogether from stating that when that thing arrives, it would be the incarnation of Almighty God. Wave Isaiah, and i will address it.

Besides you probably do not know just how many aspects of Jesus' life were deliberately cookd up in a bid to match already existing prophecy and as such claim him to be the messiah. One such is the myth of the virgin birth; a blatant falsehood contrived to defend a pregnancy out of wedlock - which would have meant death by stoning for the mother.

Oh there are plenty of parallels. They both came teaching God and repentance. Thay both outrightly assert that they are not God. Nevertheless both their followres proceed to insist that they are almighty God.

You never know, Olumb Olumba Obu might just be a reincarnation of Jesus from Nazareth.

DeepSight, please stop playing cheap here. We've been through this debate once and many times over and you had nothing to show for simple questions presented after your whining have all been dealt with. The last time in karo93's thread were pertinent questions you categorically ignored after the same issues had been dealt with.

Edit: ^^^ You already said what I had in mind, lol.
________

jaffi:
SO WORDOF FAITH IS VITAL AS XTIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you still haven't understood the huge difference between the Biblical faith and the "Word of Faith (WoF) movement".

It is not enough for us to rush to Romans 10:8 to quote 'the word of faith that we proclaim' and assume it is the same thing as the 'movement' known as 'the WOF' - they are not the same.

Joagbaje:
They should have caught the false brethren and beat the demon out of him! I trust Paul , After suffering fro false brethren like this, If he catch you??.

Galatians 2:4-5
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: [5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

So where in Galatians 2:4-5 did Paul "beat the demon out of" anybody there? You're too much in a hurry to read your own ideas into Scripture - and that is not breaking news. Just like this one again:

Joagbaje:
Jesus collected money from several people for his ministry.

Where did Jesus collect money from several people for His ministry? Why haven't you shown that verse?

Joagbaje:
You are more than a spy. you are a "false brethren". If you can ridicle a church you attend , publicly.

You don't expect someone to keep quiet when very questionable things are espoused behind the curtains.

Ephesians 5:11 - 'Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.'

ukotmi:
I dont pay attention to all these partitions in xtianity-orthodox.evangelical, pentecostal,charismatic, word of faith.

If you really do not pay any attention, there's no need to have commented.

InesQor:
LOL viaro. Either way, I still can't view the page. I don't think it has to do with the browser, maybe it's an IP address range (like Youtube blocks some videos to people from some locations, it does this by checking IP address ranges).

^^ You've a good head on that - absolutely spot on! I'm sore fed up now with seeing messages like 'please contact your ISP or admin' or something like 'you don't have permission to view this page from this server/DNS'. Now I understand a bit more about why I can't access my e-box at work and sometimes even at home!

mavenbox:
@viaro I also tried to repost the info you posted (I got it from your recent posts on your profile). Of course it was filtered by the spambot again. Maybe it has to do with those links and the way you wrote out your ideas.

My deepest appreciation. I'm quite between two thoughts about it now - because I don't know whether re-posting it within quotes as Krayola suggested might work for me .[color=Black].[/color]. or otherwise earn me a ban. It's a habit with me not to just make statements here and there without trying to back them up with attested sources. I may let that reply rest for now, tucked away in my profile - maybe some other time I'd test out Krayola's goodly recommendation.

Krayola:
Why does it matter.? This is an (anonymous) internet forum isn't it . . I think dwellin on stuff like that is kinda petty tbh. It's about the contents of the post IMO, not the poster. Besides that has been flogged into the ground.

I really wonder why DeepSight often makes recourse to very petty issues like that.

Deep Sight:
@ Viaro -

I am at a loss.

You have stated that I did not mention which God I had in mind.

I thought i did -

I said -

So i do not understand what you mean when you say I have not mentioned what God i refer to.

I explained in the above that I mean to ask if the Atheist may do the will of God (as conceived by a Theist) - without acknowledgfing that such a God exists.

Basically if you see a man who loves his fellow man and yet is an Atheist, would you say that in the act of loving his fellow man he is actually in line with the will of God as YOU understand God to be?

I think its that simple. I cant see a confusion there.

If only the filter had allowed for the second half of my post, I explained in detail why you cannot make this vacillation from Buddhism, past your OOI, and then on to a narrowed position that zeroes in on "only" the Theistic conception of God.

If you could go to my profile, check the second half of my post - and you will see that your arguments are quite unnecessary. This is why, I suppose, even mavenbox did a most brilliant thing to go check it out and tried to repost it.

I don't know if I could edit or re-arrange my second post here or in a new thread. The turn of discussion so far has heightened my interest, because it is most important that you see how your dangle is neither here nor there. One might as well apply the same specifics to your own deistic 'god' and see if the results match. Please don't try to make broad generalisations on matters like this - it may otherwise tend to a most serious disservice on all fronts and stakeholders.

mavenbox:
@viaro: I guess the spambot has you. Dont try to re-post or you may get banned. happened to me before.

Goodly advice. I was just wondering.

Lol, I don't know what is happening, but my previous post is not appearing. Whatz up?

Deep Sight:
Thanks again for your comments Viaro.

Much obliged.

Errrrrr. . . how can i put this?

Maybe you should just look at the simple example i gave -

Man X - Believes God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

Man Y - Believes God exists. Is rabidly anti-social. A hired assasin and corrupt politician. Despises charity. Cruel and bitter minded.

Man Z - Does not believe God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

DeepSight, please tell me as simply as you can: what 'God' are you speaking about?

I think your prevarication on this matter is beginning to show up. Or, I could only excuse this whole issue on one thing: you just do not have any inkling what you're talking about. Between these two, the choice is yours.

Why is it too difficult for you to point to a particular reference on your 'God'? What is wrong with the atheist pointing to your own OOI to make whatever he/she likes of it?

You see, it's easy to pull the rug from under the feet of the same fellows you invite to this thread - I saw it upfront and that was why I let this thread alone initially. I just happen to notice that when specifics are concerned, people who talk the way you do are more than likely to be as evasive as ever. Otherwise, I don't see why this simple issue is forever proving the most difficult point for you - especially in the face of the fact that 'God' in Buddhism does not mean what other worldviews may hold about that term.

This was why I narrowed it down to this simple point:

    If you don't think so, please just show me ONE specific worldview or belief system
    where the term 'God' has no identity whatsoever in order for that worldview to be
    coherent. Just ONE example would do.

Would I have expected you to oblige an answer to that? No. Why so? Is it not obvious you're not making any sense whatsoever thus far?

Let me make this clear:

  1. We are speaking about Man Z - the Atheist - as such the question of "which God" does not arise at all because he does not believe in any God whatsoever! Pertaining to him the "God" definition is totally out of the question.

This is where you display the fact that you absolutely do not have a clue what you're saying. Go and get a real-life experience about this, and then come back and let's see if you can maintain this cheap talk up there.

2. The God - definition of which you speak is thus only relevant to the Theist who believes in God.

Which more than confirms to me that you're excluding yourself from that term: 'theist'. This is not about which 'God' I am speaking about - this thread is yours: you're the one person who started this whole issue in arguing that the atheist is a "better worshipper" of 'God', and that 'God' that the atheist worships is what we're about to discover. Why is that a problem for you?

3. Consequently the definition that should apply should be the Theist's definition - namely that the question I asked you works with the Theists Definition of God in mind.

False - trice remarkably and roguishly FALSE in broad daylight! This thread was not about the theistic concept of 'God' of which you tried to dragoon the atheist into as a "better worshipper".

On this very same issue, I had made the point in another thread that -

      There are atheists to whom the word 'god' is no problem at all, for in their
      own philosophy of ideas they use the word loosely. The example of Einstein
      who appeals to Spinoza's 'god' is a ready reference: it simple comes down
      to god being nature.

For the Theist, God is NOT 'nature' - and since this thread is not about theism, you can't just make a huge switch to turn it around to be a discussion on theism - any theism - for that matter! Nor can you try to quickly pull the rug from under the feet of the atheist when you already are soliciting Buddhism, where Buddhism as a matter of fact does not hold the theistic meaning of 'God'. I think your dribbling round this issue is not quite the thing for you, DeepSight.

InesQor:
@Enigma: LMAO

This is what Jesus said about people like Uwakaneme

Telling lies in the name of faith, issuing a dud cheque, where is the line drawn for faith and crime? Wahala dey!!!

The dimensions of the 'WOF movement' are beyond the 12th. They 'operate' at a level that we can't grasp, and it's little wonder then that we remain the 'babies' in such continuum. The quantum leaps of these guys are 'past finding out'.

Edit: By the way, it seems WOF people have taken down the story from PM news, cos it's no longer there on the website.

Hehe. . funny how these things work. I just checked and the page is there - still with the article/report. I remember recently when Krayola in another thread left a Google link and there was nothing I could have done to view the page! I wonder if it's the browser?

Deep Sight:
We can swing it on whatever precept of God you are happy to suggest. I will work with any.

I'm not sure you can work with any, which is why it is not incumbent upon me to make any suggestions. I just want you to be very clear on identities, for I've noted earlier that worldviews have very diverse and different denotations of the term 'God' (as in the case of Buddhism). You cannot just throw a general appellation floating around and expect your discussants to run along with it.

In this you might note as a help the broad flavour of the worship of God which I had talked about viz:

Deep Sight:
For me the worship of God simply involves a pursuit of harmony and love and perhaps also a living passion for the wonder of existence.

You first have to identify that 'God' of which you speak, without which all else you might say would tend to be meaningless.

- which precept of worship is couched in broad terms and as such is not contingent on having ANY precept of God at all or even acknowledging that God exists.

Which renders everything meaningless in your discussion in this thread. 'Broad terms' that are not contingent on ANY precept of what you want to speak about just doesn't have a leg to stand on - what that says is that you're neither here nor there, for the only thing that is to be grasped there is a void. I don't know of any worldview that floats on such 'broad terms' as to elude specifics - especially where identities are not defined.

- Thus my willingness to accept any precept of God which you may be willing to advance.

That's a contradition to the previous statement. If you going to speak in broad terms that are not contingent on ANY precept of God, how then are you asking anyone to advance any specific identities of any 'God'? I think it is pertinent upon you to identify what you want to speak about, whether or not you choose to do so in any number of fundamentals.

- However as a further help perhaps I should couch my initial statement this way – A man might be an atheist: but love his fellow man. He is as such in loving his fellow man doing the will of God – even if he is not aware of the fact. He is indeed doing the will of God to a greater degree than a Theist who despises all his fellowmen.

Sorry to observe that is a most pretentious fallacy yet again. An atheist lives his or her life on the predicate of a belief that 'God' (however defined or identified) does not exist - in other words, the word 'God' is consciously ruled out! The theist, on the other hand, lives on the predicate of a belief where the basis of ethics is consciously grounded in 'God' (speficically identified in supernatural terms). Hence, for any indices of the "will of God", you would first have to identify the specific 'God' you're talking about before trying to pirate the term 'God' into the atheistic worldview. Failing to do so just renders your redaction meaningless yet again.

- Hence my question to you inquiring if an acknowledgement that God exists is required to do the will of God.

Dare I say again: what 'God' are you DeepSight talking about? You are yet to identify that 'God' before rushing into other stuff. The term 'God' in Buddhism is radically different from most other concepts of 'God', and you cannot just railroad your discussion on broad terms with no specifics - else everything you advance is meaningless.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

Not one tiny bit - which is why my most basic question remains.

Looking forward to your answer to the question now -

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?

Where is that 'God' of which you speak, DeepSight? What 'God' are you on about?

If you're going to focus on the Christian conception of 'God', there is a most specific request I made for you to demonstrate: you would first have to identify that 'God' and then "adhere in all consistency" to the same 'God' before you hope to convey any meaning to your addressees.

Now, if there are no specifics, then -

     (a)  you would not be requesting anyone to suggest any 'God' for you

     (b)  as such, your discussion would have no meaning to others

In any worldview you may chance upon, specifics on identities are central. If you don't think so, please just show me ONE specific worldview or belief system where the term 'God' has no identity whatsoever in order for that worldview to be coherent. Just ONE example would do. Cheers.

Deep Sight:
Viaro -

Let us work with your concept of God as a Christian. That will do.

No, we can't just swing it on my own Christian concept of God for these reasons:

(a) First, viaro is not a Buddhist - I've noted that the concept of 'god' in Buddhism is quite different from what obtains in other worldviews.

(b) Second, this thread is not about the Christian concept of 'God' - and I would not be entertaining any deviations to turn or swing it otherwise from the Buddhist concept to now the Christian concept of 'God'.

(c) Third, I'm sure the atheists to whom you're preaching 'worship' and 'God' to, already should expect you to delineate what 'God' exactly you're speaking about. If it was a matter of the Christian 'God', the atheist already takes a position that he/she is not a worshipper of 'God', let alone a 'better worshipper' (as you put it). This is why it would look like you're trying to pull the rug from under us if you advance 'worship' and 'God' without specifics from your own matrix.

(d) Fourth, I certainly made clear that you would have to demonstrate that you both adhere to and be consistent with whatever 'God' you want to discuss. If you want me to proceed with the Christian concept of 'God', then please show me clearly that you adhere to the Biblical faith of God as well as be ready to be consistent in your faith in Him. If you cannot do so, then it means that you have a different concept of 'God' that you want to present to the atheist - and that is why it is incumbent upon you to explicate that 'God' for the atheist so he/she could be the desired "better worshipper" that you envisage.

Four points for now. I proceed as soon as you oblige them. Cheers.

Suhaibu:
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I didn't know that this rat didn't know the meaning of REFERENCE and CITATION.

How have you demonstrated the meaning of either terms? I wasn't expecting you'd be reasonable - unstable posters often exclaim the way you do and yet show nothing.

I made it clear that Adam's creation is not as literally as it is in God rather the likeness in attribute like seeing and hearing but that which befit Adam (attributes that are finite and imperfect) in contrast with God's attributes (that are finite and imperfect).

Did you read me anywhere saying that it was a "literal" interpretation? Please show me where I used the word "literal"? The one thing I said on your quoting Genesis 1:26 was this:

[list]

viaro:
However, it is also known that Islam teaches the same thing about Adam being in the image of Allah, no? For instance, at least two references in Sahih Muslim hadith (S.M.) say that ~

    (a)  Allah created Adam in His own image with His length of sixty cubits
          [S.M., Book 40, Number 6809]

    (b)  When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face
           for Allah created Adam in His own image [S.M., Book 32, Number 6325]

[/list]

In that reply, did I use the term "literal" to imply what you are arguing? Thanks for convincing me that you don't have basic education - I made a mistake hoping better for you. It was not only that you DENIED the fact of what is taught in Islam - but where you couldn't deny it further, you turn to twist it on the fallacy of "literalism". The lie is yours, since I did not argue what you want to deceive yourself to make out from my post.

Suhaibu:
The way you don't see things even when they are clear reminds me of a verse in THE NOBLE QURAN:

"Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path)" (2:18).

I was not a Muslim, so the question of "return" is damn illiterate. That is why there still is so much confusion in the Muslim world.

And Jesus:

"Are ye also yet without understanding?" Mat 15:16.

Certainly, that verse should help you think and get some understanding. So far, your denying the same thing that you only returned to twist shows how far gone from 'understanding' you are.

The image in the bible is so literal and down to earth where the God himself supposedly said the bible:

"Let's make Man in to our image" Genesis 1:26.

You're a dunce!   You want to make it literal by force, because your al-taquiyya no longer helps you deny what your hadeeths were saying. At least, the Genesis 1:26 which you quote does not talk about "sixty cubits" that Muhammad was busy deceiving you guys with.

I don't know your denomination but most of the Christians as a result of this verse they believe that god became man; that is i form of Jesus.
Do you believe he (Jesus) is God?

Haha . . . now you're a confirmed dolt or altogether a cheap liar. The Incarnation is not predicated on Genesis 1:26 - no wonder you have been falling all over yourself to both lie, deny what your hadiths say, and then return to fill the gaps for your allah. Please go back to school and school up.

*You don't know anything happening in Europe if you are denying the conversion of Christianity in to Islam.
See this:

http://rupeenews.com/2008/07/21/growing-muslims-in-europe-50000-brits-convert-every-year/ and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe


Answer me before I answer your question about the creation of earth.

I have shown you the analysis of what exactly is happening in Europe about the exaggerated claims of Muslims with their al-taqiyya. So, what's news about you returning again with the same exaggerations?

Let me show you the sort of exaggeration that Muslims make - in the first link (rupeenews), someone by the name of 'Moin Ansari' alleges that the British Home Secretary Jack Smith "even suggested setting up an Islamic University in Britain given the overwhelming population of the Muslims in that country." Now, please show us a source for this claim which Ansari dubiously hangs on the neck of Jack Smith - where did the Home Secretary make such a suggestion?

Besides, it was easy to spot the obvious LIE in that article - because the British Home Secretary in 2008 was Jacqui Smith (not "Jack Smith". Please educate yourself by checking up with Wikipedia to see the list of Home Secretaries since 2001. No responsible news correspondent with any reputable news agency would have made such a blunder, dude! This is how you shameless Muslims go about deceiving and lying to yourselves all over the place.

Please go round again and steal more lies from Muslim goons - they are all over the place. As many as you steal them to wave in our faces, viaro will help expose your shameless, barefaced duplicity!

^^ Haha. . bro, I'll try to take it easy this time.

@Joagbaje,

Joagbaje:
Stop hiding behind wof doctrines , deal with me as a person by the word.

I think that's precisely what I've been doing, no?

There are several laws of God in the universe and in his dealings with man. From the laws of sowing and reaping , the law of justice, law of nature, reproduction to the law of sin and death, the law of the spirit of life, the law of faith etc.

God submits his omnipotence to this laws and his omniscience if I may say. This is my personal view from the word.

I kinda like the way you said that all this tripe is your "personal view", and indeed it is not the Word of God. You seem to be convincing me more and more that it's either you don't know the meaning of God's omnipotence and omniscience, or you just don't have any regard for God Himself to have been asserting what you can't find in His Word.

Let's just take two examples from your list:

 (A)    law of nature,
 (B)    reproduction to the law of sin and death

You did not tell me what you might mean by 'law of nature' - at least, I distinguished between: (a) the scientific sense, and (b) the religio-spirituality sense. If I had to take the former [(a)], then it means that you have reduced God to a mere puppet subservient to nature.

As such, your contraption of 'God' rules out Sovereignty and God's Preternatural Power. The 'god' you speak of is NOT the God we read of in the Bible for the Christian faith - for that which submits his omnipotence and omniscience to some set laws by necessity suggests that he cannot rise above those same laws of nature.

The same thing could be said as to 'the law of sin and death'. Even in our humanity, we cannot rise above such a "law of sin and death" in our best efforts. If we would be delivered, we need Someone who Himself is not under such a law - this is why Paul declares: 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from "the law of sin and death"' (Rom. 8:2). Just imagine a situation where you have to reckon on a 'god' who has himself submitted his sovereignty to the same law under which you are held bound!

Joagbaje, you only confirm that you either don't know God in the Biblical sense, or that you don't understand the terms you use in your arguments .[color=Black].[/color]. or if you understand anything at all, you simply have absolutely no regard for God.

InesQor:
I have a lot to say about the above, but I will let viaro answer for himself.

My brother, thank you.

mavenbox:
I love that cartoon, viaro!!!

Hehe. . . me too. I just don't want anyone to pull the rug from under us here.

Hello DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
Let me put a question to you.

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?

Thanks for your question. I'd like a context for your question before I address it. If you first tell us what 'God' you are intending to discuss and adhere to in all consistency, then I can provide an answer with substance.

Suhaibu:
You are arrogant of the hadith you are quoting.

Do you know the meaning of "arrogant"? How could I be 'arrogant of' something I quoted, please tell me? I wonder where you guys just get your cheap education from these days.

Now let me address the issues.
This hadeeth is proven from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), in which he said: “If any one of you strikes (another), let him avoid the face, for Allaah created Adam in His image.” According to another version: “In the image of the Most Merciful.” This does not imply resemblance or likeness.

So, in what sense does that substantially deviate from the same points I made in citing both Sahih Muslim verses as earlier - quoted again below:

viaro: . . . at least two references in Sahih Muslim hadith (S.M.) say that ~

(a) Allah created Adam in His own image with His length of sixty cubits
[S.M., Book 40, Number 6809]

(b) When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face
for Allah created Adam in His own image [S.M., Book 32, Number 6325]

So, in what way did my citations differ from the very same thing you tried to quote and yet left no references? Other than that, I don't see how you have refuted the point I made - because you are the very person in this thread who categorically DENIED the fact when you stated --
[list]

Suhaibu:
*Nowhere is Adam mentioned as being the image of God. Do you know what we call the chains of narration of Hadith? is that hadith authentic? I want answers to these false accusation.

[/list]

I then answered your fallacious and categorical denial on that very fact, by pointing you to the authenticity of the SAHIH hadith cited from Sahih Muslim.

You only just returned here to swallow your hogwash and then post me a cosmetic from some muslim trying his very best to impress his low IQ on some tafsir sliced up here and there. Instead of pretending that you're the 'scholar' trying to explain the contrivance about Adam being in Allah's image, why don't you respectfully leave us the link from where you stole it? Have you heard of the word plagiarism before? That apprentice 'tafsir' you dribbled in here has been recycled too many times on so many Muslim websites - just two would do for example:

(a) hidayahnet:
'Allah created Adam[a.s] in His own image'

(b) Gypsy Scholar:
'Mankind made in the image of Allah?'

Next time you want to steal quotes and pretend it is your own scholarship, look left and right before you cross the road - most of the people on Nairaland will smart you up on your celebrated plagiarism.

The verse you quoted is right. Of course among Christians there are good and sincere men that aren arrogant. That is why we have high number of converts. If you look in Europe, the growing number of Christians revert, you will be overwhelmed.

Lol, dude - we know what is happening in Europe. Muslims are only increasing on account of immigration and not large conversions. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

[list]Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates^[24] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate[/list]

For an analysis of this exaggerated Muslim claims, see Islam: Truth or Myth?

In all this, you're swung now from Allah creating Adam in his own image, and from your dijjal/dujjal, to an unrelated subject: exaggerated Muslim claims of growth in Europe. Well done. I just notice that anytime you're whipped on your own claims, you desperate appeal to something else - especially when you have to plagiarise articles so to fill pages and appear 'scholarly'. I doff my hat.

Quran is so right in every side. I hope you are not among the arrogant ones.

Please show me how Quran can be right in claiming that Allah created "seven earths" (Quran 65:12). That one, I want to know.

That is why Quran is a complete book that touches not only Muslims but all Mankind; covering all generation.

Please stop making noise. Quran is an incomplete book - that is why you guys will not find any 'dajjal/dijjal/dujjal' in the Quran and have to scuttle round looking to any number of hadeeths to fill the gap. Where in the Quran do you read that Allah created Adam in sixty cubits? Complete - NOT!

What number of people do bible cover? some 2.1 billion only?
incomplete memoir.

And you Muslims are busy plagiarizing the Bible for your less number distributed among your Muslim goons looking for 72 virgins, no?

Pretty enough.

Thanks - now you can sob. Heavily.

Oh well, initially I was just observing the thread since the OP seemed to have invited atheists more particularly. Whatever. And thanks to you both: Pastor AIO and mavenbox - your comments are very refreshing.

Yet, a few very funny things are going on here.

Deep Sight:
Thus, strictly speaking, it is possible, in my view, for the Atheist mind to actually be a better "worshipper" of God than a Theist who does not actually practive love of his fellow man.

Slow down. There are some questions we must ask, if we're to take you seriously on your "strictly speaking":

(a)   in what possible sense is the atheist ever to engage in the 'worship' of God? What 'God' is that?

(b)   the proposal that such an atheist would be a better worshipper of 'God' than the theist highly suggests that the OP DeepSight is excluding himself from the term 'theist'. Either that, or you acknowledge that you're a very poor worshipper of the 'God' you preach to the atheist.

(c)   but there's more: the whole piece is built on a fundamental fallacy, as in the next line quoted below -

Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God. It centres around connecting with "the self" and rising above the mundane cycle of desire inherent in existence and thereby attaining an elevated consciousness (Nirvana) or, as it is said - becoming an "awakened" or "elightened one."

Lol, Buddhism as a religion actually makes reference to 'god' - the difference is that the concept of 'god' or deity in Buddhism is quite different from what obtains in other religions. It may help to look up 'deva' under Buddhism.

Atheists, come on board. . . Don't worry, it says nothing about God!

But you already did mention 'God' - "it is possible, in my view, for the Atheist mind to actually be a better "worshipper" of God than a Theist" (your OP), no? It just reminds me of the cartoon below -

https://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/ninasadventures/art_images/na930604_lr_r2.jpg

Was that ^^^ all you have for your dajjal, dijjal, dujjal, etc? What happened to Allah becoming the hands and legs of his slaves? And Adam being created in Allah's image (sixty cubits)? Dude, your drama is beginning to thin out quicker than I'd expected.

Suhaibu:
I though you know Islam. But you don't know that Hadeeth compliment Quran?
What are the sources of Shariah?
Answer me Please,

Did I ever claim to know Islam or even be a Muslim? I guess you never read before rushing to click on the 'reply' botton. At least, even as a non-Muslim, I was able to see through your confusion between 'dajjal/dijjal/dujjal' etc. It is now you're hooting for the hadeeth to compliment the Quran - where were you when I cited the sahih hadiths for the points I raised in my previous replies? And where did your Allah ever ask you muslims to turn to the hadiths (whether sahih or maudu) to compliment his own quran? Would that not be admitting that your Quran was afterall not sufficient for all your drama wrapped up as 'Islam'? You often like to sing this lullaby of things which you can't show from your own Quran. Shame.

And you are absolutely correct: "no comparison between Christianity and Islam".

Good - you should have carefully thought about that before you came here to spew your garboil. Now save yourself the rest and crawl back to your desert.

As Islam worship THE CREATOR (GOD AND ONLY) while the Christians worship THE CREATION (Jesus and some other gods in TRINITY).
Bravo! for that.

Lol, we all know that the allah of Islam is a created entity - was he not the same one that was busy declaring that he would become the hands and legs of his slaves? I notice you never want to comment on that same point that is most expressly declared in your sahih hadiths (hint: you can't deny them as they are "sahih". Of all things to become, it is the hands and legs of his slaves - the same slaves he has promised to send to hell fire by an irrevocable decree, no?

Christianity is a pagan religion it is not a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion.
Deal with that,

Yawn. I've heard that one so many times your soprano is now a cackle. At least, your own Allah in the Quran acknowledges that Christians are more intelligent than you lot put together (Quran 5:82 - the Quran says among Christians you will find there are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant) - you can live with that as well, no?

It is said in the Hadith, that all rightly guided peoples on the earth at the time of Dajjal, will be able to see the word "kafr" clearly written on the forehead of the Dajjal. Also, the Prophet (PBUH) said that if anyone is confronted by Dajjal, then they should recite the first 10 verses of Surat Al-Kaf (The Cave), and Dajjal will be powerless against them.

Hahaha. . . !! Tall tales. Which Muslim can be 'rightly guided' by Allah when the same Allah has promised to send Muslims to hell fire by an irrevocable decree? Dude, I'm not being funny here, but you should not have tried to compare between these worldviews: "Christianity vs Islam" - there's just no reason to do so.

If I were you, I would not pay any attention to that second 'messiah' of Islam - the 'Messiah, ad-dajjal'. Whatever you Muslims think, reciting a couple of verses of any caves to the one-eyed klunk would only make a blockbuster success for his career. Since Allah did not mention anything about any 'dajjal', is it Muhammad that should know more than your Allah whom you say 'knows best'?

It's funny how this Christian puppet are making false allegation about the religion of Jesus. O' Yes! Islam is the religion of Jesus.
You Dajjal!

Steady on, now .[color=Black].[/color]. where are the false allegations I have made in my replies? I have buttressed my points with clear verses both from your Quran and hadiths - the SAHIH hadiths; Adam is said to be created in Allah's image (sixty cubits, said he); Allah is the hands and legs of his slaves (sahih Muslim hadiths); and the fact that you're a confused fellow with minimal Arabic who confuses between 'dajjal' and 'dijjal' and now 'dujjal'. Just where are the false allegations in all this?

Just crawl back to your desert yard - I made the mistake of taking you seriously initially; but I'd have to give you credit for your al-taqiyya .[color=Black].[/color]. which didn't help that much this time again - so better try next time, no?