«Home

Are Christians in Conflict or Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

Hmm. . I think that title should grab attention. Now, to the topic at hand.

First, I must apologize for my current lack of preparation. I will lookup the data to backup what I'm stating here and need to get more info so that there can be greater discussion and contribution from the community to this topic.

So, here is the gist of my topic:

There are many threads in this forum where people are asking advice about one thing or another. Issues such as homosexuality, permarital sex, and others (which some feel are grevious sexual sins) tend to recieve mass replies of condemnation on the basis of scripture (from the Bible). Now, I'm not saying that Christians should not respond or give their views, but there is a lot of attack on those seen as commiting sexual sins - as if those sins are any more serious than lying or stealing a penny from a jar. In my view, more space should be given to showing (if possible) the repercussions of some actions and less to blasting someone for sinning or considering doing so.

So, the more I read some of these posts, the more my ire is raised against those who would use their religious beliefs as a hammer to beat some person into submission. For those who believe the Word of God embodied in the bible is as true today as when it was written, that there is only one strict interpretation of the Word, I pose this question:

The bible indicates (among other things which I will look up and post later) that slaves should not run away from their masters, women should be seen and not heard, and man should not labour (ie work for pay or personal advancement) on the Sabbath. For the most part, Christians do not agree with these laws (or at least they don't live like they do). So, I ask, why?

Why is it that some things in the bible should be taken literally and others, we can ignore? If I will condemn someone for sexual sin, should I also condemn my ancestors for striving to escape slavery? Why is it that it seems people pick and choose which parts of the bible are relevant to today's life. (Slavery and homosexuality are major examples for those in the USA).

Avatar
Newbie
145 answers

First, let me attend to @ajia23:

I wasn't being selective in responding to anyone's missives, much less Abeem's. If anything, you've just been very selective yourself and have not displayed a mature sense of dialogue on the Forum.

If you could delineate or outline your concerns then I could make an attempt to offer some answers. Meanwhile, in another thread, you'd stated that you'll ignore me completely - so I wonder if answering your questions is worth the waste of time and effort.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Gwaine

Please do not be selective in responding to Abeem's or other questions. There are lots of outstanding questions begging answers from Odache's post and Abeem. Please respond to each concern so that atleast they will be cleared from the list of concerns which I have about christianity.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Gwaine please explain this quote to me. Is it really in the bible? What does it mean?

Thank you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Abeem,

I'm definitely not 'given to' (characterized by) insulting people who hold "a different opinion" from mine. Apply the rules to your own case and try not insulting the faith of Christians by referring to it as -

¤ 'derogatory demotion' ¤ 'such ridicule and blasphemy'

It was just quizzical to me that you chaps would like to trample the faith and convictions of other people, but can't take the heat when someone speaks of your own religion and convictions in such like language as you've served others. Notice my opening remarks in my previous reply: "I notice you chaps have a penchant for starting a religious harangue you can't finish." If you engage in dialogue without trying first to be derogatory or scornful of the religion and convictions of other people, then there would be no need to come back nursing any bruises. Talk to people - ask questions at issues you don't understand; then you'll find them responding in like manner that won't make you lose sleep.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You are given to insulting people who hold a different opinion from you. Therefore, it is of no use joining forces with you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Dear Abeem,

I notice you chaps have a penchant for starting a religious harangue you can't finish. It's often easier to point accusing fingers at others and see them as 'infidels' with a pagan religion than it is to look closer home and see the details that would make you grimace in shame. Now that you took a detour from your 'contemplation' in order to post your vexations about the Bible, allow me a few moments to help turn your gaze on the Qur'an about issues you're happy to skip and pretend don't exist in your religion.

In the preliminaries, I'd like you to notice that the Qur'an has short-changed you guys. Genesis 1:26 was already written and has never been altered in history - and that is part of what the Qur'an had actually endorsed when it claimed that "Allah" confirmed the Torah before having sent down 'the Book' unto Muhammad. Sura 003:003 reads - "He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel." So, did the "Allah" of the Qur'an actually reveal the Torah, or that was just a cheap game that Muhammad dreamed up to blow smoke over your eyes?

The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures usually referred to as the Pentateuch; and notice that the Qur'an  in Sura 003:003 endorsed and "confirmed" the Pentateuch - of course, with the Genesis 1:26 and every other verse (such as those in Exodus) in the Pentateuch that you referenced. Your problem here is that you failed to realise that the "Allah" of the Qur'an who bragged about his having previously "confirmed" and "revealed" the Torah, ought to have known that God made man in His image and likeness, as well as rested on the seventh day. This means that "Allah" was confirming that there was nothing wrong with Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy - more so because he was purporting that he was the very one who revealed the Torah!

Question: was the "Allah" of the Qur'an blind to those verses, or he was just offering Muslims a bogus claim that had no substance? If on the other hand, 'Allah' actually confirmed the Torah, then he was agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the same Torah or Pentateuch. . . until, of course, Muhammad was check-mated in his typical Arabian conceit.

To be sure, the collective testimony of the Old Testament reveals God's nature, character, power and love as far above anything comprehensible to any of His creation - whether man or angels.

# There is indeed none like Him - "And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God" (Exo 8:10); ". . . that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth" (Exo. 9:14); "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears" (2 Sam. 7:22); "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isa. 46:9); "Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might" (Jer. 10:6).

# "He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber. Behold, he [i.e., God] that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep" (Psa. 121:3-4).

# "Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. . . For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether" (Psa. 139:2, 4).

Your problem is that you're reposting here what some blind Islamic munafiq of 'Deen Digest' with half-baked knowledge of the Bible posted somewhere on the net, without having gone through the Bible yourself to see the other texts that you conveniently left out. You chaps are trained in partial quotes and thus reveal your sleight of hand anytime you betake yourselves to your craft.

I can't stop laughing at your infantile delinquency here in poor readership. Let me help you: Judges 1:19 does not say that the LORD could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley. Rather, the "he" in the statement 'he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley' refers to Judah, and not to the LORD. Thus, Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley - and that's the context of that verse.

What you want the Muslim to believe is not going to change the lies and bogus claims about the Qur'an that Muhammad dreamed up. And you know that the Bedouin Prophet himself said that part of the Qur'an was revealed to him while he was sweating in sexual intercourse with Aisha, while others were revealed as his companions were messing around with "war booty" (female captives) -

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 Book 57 Number 119

". . .the Prophet said, "O Um Salama! Don't trouble me by harming 'Aisha, for by God, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her."

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 136:

Narrated Jabir:We used to practice Reproduction interruptus while the Quran was being revealed.

If you are claiming that the 'earlier scriptures' of the Torah and Gospel were from "Allah" but later corrupted, you should remember that what "Allah" was purporting to have confirmed and revealed were the same Pentateuch that remain unchanged since they were inscribed. Jeremiah 8:8 was reproaching some dubious political scribes who attempted to falsify some texts of the Law of the LORD but were checkmated in their scheme - in just precisely the way that Agur the son of Jakeh reproved them (Prov. 30:5-6).

Jesus Himself testified that "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and all through His earthly ministry He quoted freely from the same Torah that remained unaltered after several centuries up until in His day. That was why He accused the Pharisees that they were laying aside God's commandment in preference for their man-made laws and doctrines ("For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do" - Mark 7:8 ).

Further, if the Qur'an was indeed infallible, then why was "Allah" not able to protect his book from Caliph Uthman who ordered its initial copies to be burnt with fire? Certainly, what Muslims have today is the political redaction of Caliph Uthman - an edited codex from the originals that the Caliph saw as a threat of instability of Muslim cohesion.

You could contemplate further on what next serial to post; and you might just be surprised to read some stuff you have been ignoring about the grey areas of Islam, the religion of the Quraish Prophet Muhammad.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I was contemplating to writing another serial in continuation of my posting on the Amazing Qur'an and by happenstance, I stumbled on this posting.  Most of what I planned to cover in my new article had been discussed at length by the author of the Guardian editorial opinion article and so I considered it apposite to post this serial here for our friends on the opposite side of the religious divide to ponder over and provide some explanations or reactions as appropriate.

Depending on the religious belief you profess, you either believe that your scripture is divinely revealed and the contents are Words of God and the other scripture, not so divinely revealed.  Some believe that both the Qur'an and the Bible are of similar nature and content. Some are of the opinion that the author of the Qur'an must have copied from the Bible judging by the similarities of the two books. They based their argument on the fact that the Bible had been in existence before the advent of Islam.  What can be further from the truth.

On the whole, the Bible and the Qur’an are as dissimilar as the night and day, death and life and evil and good.  Precisely, the gulf of difference between these books widens by every attempt at comparison.  For example, let us examine how these books present God, the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the whole universe.

The Bible describes God in human form, with human characteristics and with limited knowledge because man can hide from him.  But the Qur’an clearly absolves God (the most High, the all-Knowing and all-Powerful Being) of such derogatory demotion.

Bible Version

“Let us create man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26).”  “… For God made Man in his own image” (Gen. 9:6)   “…For six days the LORD made heaven and earth--- and RESTED the seventh day…” (Gen. 2:23, Exo. 10:11) “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD among the trees of the garden.  And the LORD called unto Adam and said unto him where art though? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was Unclad and I hid myself.” (Gen. 3:8-11).

Qur’an Version

“…He has made for you pairs from among yourselves …there is nothing whatever like unto Him…” (Q42:11).  We have indeed created man in the best of moulds.” (Q95:4)  “Allah! There is no God but He, the living, the Self Subsisting, Supporter of all.  No slumber can seize Him, nor sleep…” (Q2:255)  “No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things” (Q6:103).  “…He knows whatever there is on the earth and in the sea.  Not a leaf fall but with His knowledge… It is He who does take your souls by night and has knowledge of all that you have done by the day…” (Q6:59).

Further while the Bible presents God in several passages as being sorry and repentant, as weak and one that was defeated by a man; the Qur’an, the criterion and a guide to all truth lack such ridicule and blasphemy.

Bible Version

“Then God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth…and the LORD was SORRY that he had made men on earth, and it GRIEVED him to his heart.  So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created…for I AM SORRY that I have made them” (Gen. 5: 6-7).  “And the LORD REPENTED OF THE EVIL which he thought to do to his people.” (Exo. 32:14, Judges 2:18 and Gen. 18:20-21). Jacob wrestled and defeated God (Gen.32:24-30).  “And the LORD was with Judah: and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron” (Judges 1:19)

Qur’an Version

“It is HE who has created for you all things that are on earth; then He turned to the Heavens and made them into seven firmaments. And of all things He has perfect knowledge.” (Q2:29).  “Verily Allah will not deal unjustly with man in aught: it is man that wrongs his own soul.” (Q10:44)  “…Allah said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know all the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what you reveal and what you conceal?” (Q2:33).  “Say: “O Allah! Lord of Power (and Rule) You give power to whom You please and You strip off Power from whom You please” (Q3:26, also Q51:58).

What the Muslims believe is that, the earlier scriptures (Tawrah, Zaburah and Injeel) were from Allah but later corrupted by the Jews.  Further, we believe in the infallibility of the Qur’an as promised by Allah, “We have without doubt, sent down the Message (Al-Qur’an), and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). (Q15:9). Truly amazing is the Qur’an. 

(Culled from Deen Digest May/June 1997 (Emphasis mine).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi all, to further butress my position that the bible surely contradicts itself, here is an excerpt from the Guardian newspaper of Nigeria today.

Still on the Da Vinci Code

By Osaro Odache

THE recent article by Pius Isiekwene in The Guardian of June 29, 2006 condemning author Dan Brown over his depiction of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code was another spirited attempt to hoodwink the unwary amidst inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the present-day Bible. Over the years, reasoned literary critiques of religious dogmas have always met with accusations of blasphemy and heresy. Adherents of Christian faith deliberately avoid discussing or debating such doctrines. In the process, the uninformed is further misled and sound reasoning is suppressed. But is the modern Bible totally free of flaws, as Mr. Isiekwene would want us to believe? A cursory assessment of certain Biblical positions run counter to the writer's position of justifying that every word in the Book was spiritually inspired.

The doctrine of Trinity forms the cornerstone on which Christianity stands. Yet it is one of the most profound and difficult dogmas to explain and understand. But should it be so? Of course, truth should not be so difficult to espouse and justify. If we agree that there is a Supreme Being called God then Trinity is clearly against the concept of one father in heaven who creates and sustains.

With the Old Testament saying "in the beginning there was God and the word was with God and the word was God", then the Bible is implying that God had a beginning. That would be contrary to the concept of eternity of God. Shouldn't the "Word" with God mean the command by which the Supreme Father causes all things to be and also bring them to an end as He wills. It is by "Word" that Adam was created (with neither father nor mother), Eve was created (without a mother but with a father) and Jesus created (with a mother but not a father). The lesson is that God is almighty and is capable of doing all things. If it would take the immaculateness of a being to cleanse the world of sins, the angels are better placed for that purpose. Otherwise, it would run counter to Jesus' statement that no man born of a woman is without sins: Jesus was born of a woman. The Bible also informs us that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, (presumably, a sinner).

If Jesus is God, then the concept of God was incomplete for three days when Jesus was killed. The God in Heaven was also incomplete while Jesus was sojourning on earth and, of course, before his birth. This would be contrary to the notion of God being the same always. Also, of the three Godheads, whom do we supplicate to? Which of the three Godheads will sit in judgment on the last day?

That Jesus is the same as God predisposes that he was addressing himself on the cross for being forsaken in his hours of need. And how do we justify Mark 16:19 where Jesus sat on the right hand of God (sitting besides a different person or besides himself?). In the same verse, the Holy Spirit is missing. If Christ voluntarily surrendered himself to redeem mankind, how come that he tried frantically to prevent his own trial and crucifixion? And should Judas Iscariot be considered an enemy if he facilitated redemption of mankind through crucifixion? Judas ought to be glorified and commended rather than condemned and vilified. Were the people who wrote about the incident on the Calvary present at the site? Didn't they all flee when Jesus was captured?

The concept of God begetting a biological son was strange to Jesus' teaching. It is unity of essence/purpose and not of person. The Jews and Romans brought the doctrine into Christianity. Jews equally believe that Ezra is beloved son of God. Several people are referred to as sons of God in the Bible. In any case, what sort of father would ransom his beloved and righteous son to redeem the wayward and irresponsible children? Seems quite strange. Is it not against natural law for a carrier of burdens to carry other people's burdens?

Equating Jesus with God is not a position shared by all Christian denominations. Are they worse Christians? Why are there so many divergent interpretations and modes of worship in Christendom even though it is the same God, the same Jesus and the same Scripture? Why would a Christian refuse to attend any other church apart from his own denomination even with similarity of God and Scripture? Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Does the same Holy Spirit inspire these different versions with diverse teachings?

The controversy often generated by Trinity and other biblical dogmas and plain contradictions in several places in the Bible call to question Apostle Paul's statement (shared by Mr. Isiekwene) that everything in the Bible was inspired by God. Surely, God could not have inspired confusion. The original scripts of the Bible were in Hebrew, then Greek before being translated into numerous languages whereas Jesus did not speak any other language except Aramaic, a subset of Hebrew, now extinct. So, in what language was the Bible inspired and after how many years after the death of Christ? Of course, God could not have inspired the numerous contradictions in both the Old and the New Testaments. He could also not have inspired the disparaging statements made against other holy men such as Noah, Abraham and David.

The Bible calls on us to reason together. Therefore, does Trinity recognise the mightiness of God? If so, then what sort of (almighty) God would be defeated by a man (Israel defeated God in the Bible)? What sort of (almighty) God would be tempted by the devil (Jesus was)? What sort of (visionless) God would regret his action (God regretted creating man in the Bible)? What sort of (almighty) God would be powerless in the midst of miscreants who wanted his blood? How mighty is a God that got tired and slumbered (Biblical God was after the creation)? Is the statement credited to Jesus asking his mother what had he got to do with her a fair report?

Apostle Paul's coming into Christianity and outshining disciples like John and James after enormous persecution of the early converts is quite intriguing. His role in writing those books in the New Testament and in formulating new rules and declarations (unknown to or sanctioned by Christ) are so significant that his coming ought to have been predicted by Jesus. Disappointedly, Jesus never knew him nor did Christ anoint him in anyway. Was Paul's vision and conversion to Christianity corroborated by any of the known disciples?

There are several issues in the Bible that call for strong reservation and for which writers like Dan Brown are entitled to take positions. Trinity is just one of them. Religion is a matter of the soul and eternal salvation. It should be based on strong conviction not conjectures. Man should use education and intellect to ascertain the truth in order to earn salvation. This informs the need to study other Scriptures to ascertain the truth. It is the only way we can be free as people perish for lack of (true) knowledge. Dan Brown's literary work should be appreciated and not condemned. Mr. Isiekwene and other ecclesiastics should allow literary critiques of nebulous dogmas.

Odache lives in Benin City, Edo State.

© 2003 - 2006 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).

It sure raises a lot of interesting  questions doesn't it? please gwaine, TayoD, mlks_baby, 4get_me, answer some of these questions in the most scientific way possible. I have looked for the answers to these for a long time.

Here is the link to the article http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article04

0
Avatar
Newbie

Let me ask: Do one have to be deliberately derisive and intentionally disrespectful to views that differ from one's own? Bigotry towards others who hold different views from one's own persuasions cover a lot of things - religion, politics, culture, and even the arts. So, the idea that anyone must of necessity be disrespectful to people's views that differ from theirs is quite unethical - even beggarly to say the least.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Just in case you deliberately ignored it when I did on this page, here it is again -

And. . .

Just in case you're about writing your own dictionary, please let me know when it would be published and we'll see if it differs significantly from the meanings given in the following dictionaries (otherwise, your meaning is pointless) -

¤ Dictionary.com =

The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

n : the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot [syn: dogmatism]

¤ AskOxford.com =

bigot - • noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

— DERIVATIVES bigoted adjective bigotry noun.

¤ InfoPlease Dictionary

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Again, if you missed the qualifiers in my previous rejoinder ("deliberately derisive", "intentionally disrespectful"), there would really be no need holding an informed discourse with you having made up your mind to necessarily ignore obvious clarifications. You'd not have needed trashing issues in a roundabout manner if you'd only seen what you missed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Again, you are wrong. Reverend did not make that statement. I dare you to quote or link to where he did.

Hmm, well, if somebody tells me " I believe in ghosts" and I respond, "Ghosts are hogwash" and your response is to tell me that I'm a bigot. . . well hot damn, I guess I am. If this is your definition of bigotry, well, crucify me now. There is not much more I can say to you. Like I mentioned in my previous post, one cannot have a discussion without agreement on the ground terms. We clearly disagree on the meaning of bigot. At this point, I cannot see how we can expect to have further discussions, this series of posts on the same topic is proof enough of that limitation.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I really don't think there's any use playing around this issue. Whatever your persuasions, my rejoinder stands as is, with clear reference to the case in point that non-believers are usually up in arms with the same complaint that believers are 'forcing their beliefs on them', unless you just want to keep ignoring the fact that Reverend made that complaint.

As for the matter of respecting people's beliefs and convictions, you should read carefully your lines again and see that you're the one missing the point with so much concern for the word "bigotry". In the ordinary sense, that simply means intolerance for differing ideas or beliefs. One doesn't have to be deliberately derisive at the beliefs and convictions of others that differ from his/hers, even though the ideas of others may sound like bullsh*t to them.

I've held intelligent discourses with people on this Forum who still disagree with me as a Christian and yet continue to win my respect for not using such disagreements as opportunity to be deliberately derisive to the extent of being bigoted/intolerant. You may not want to listen any further to whatever points they put across, but to be intentionally disrespectful as a matter of course is unethical, whether or not you agree with that . At the end of the day, the discussants may come away disagreeing on loads of issues - but is it therefore necessary to be disrespectful of the other person's convictions simply because you don't agree with them? When you see that as the necessary thing to do, then you'd have to play on a re-definition of bigotry.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm not sure if I should bother responding to this given your last post in this topic, but I will go ahead anyway. No, I'm not talking about Reverend here. On the contrary, I'm talking about someone who claimed Reverend was forcing his beliefs onto them, simply because he challenged their view of christianity.

So, your argument, that saying some person's idea is unethical or is some form of bigotry, I disagree with. Your argument that we should show some sort of deference to ideas that we don't agree with or don't think have any merit, I disagree with. The only things that should be respected are those that most people will agree is true. If you or I say 1 + 1 = 2, as part of a discussion, no matter which side we are on, and no matter how much we dislike the other person's point of view, we have no choice but to agree that the person is correct. If I start talking about ghosts and aliens, what value is that to our argument? Those things don't exist, or have not been verified to exist, so you have no reason to accept them as a valid piece of an argument. If you don't accept them, are you, for the sake of deference, going to still continue to have a conversation with me, pretending that the crap I was just saying makes sense. I wouldn't. That is just bullsh*t.

If a person wants to have a discussion, then let us discuss. However, whenever you bring up things like ghosts or God, things which no human can positively give evidence of existing, you must be prepared to defend your statements with logic, reason, and solid tangible evidence. Without those things, there is no point listening to you or continuing the discussion. If you pretend deference towards that, then you are just humoring the other person by allowing them to continue to talk, even though you totally disagree with them.

I guess this is out of order, but arguments are supposed to go like this. You are supposed to present point which both sides agree are true. You use those points to show that your argument is correct. If neither side agrees that something is true, how can you ever reach agreement? How can you ever demonstrate you are correct? What is the point of even discussing the issue? Its like giving two students rulers in different units and telling them to measure the length of some object and arrive at a consensus as to what that length is. If both students believe they are using the same metric, they will never reach agreement. If both students believe their ruler is the only absolute correct measuring device, they will never reach agreement. The only way they can do so is to discuss the differences between their measuring devices and AGREE in advance over a conversion factor. THEN, they can make measurements, and reach agreement. Without having a consistent set of ground rules, concepts, ideas, or even rulers for an argument, you will never be able to reach agreement with the other person.

The point of an argument is not necessarily to win, it is more to demonstrate to the other person that not only are you correct, but also, they possessed all the information to know you were correct, it just so happened that they were misinterpreting one critical part.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ mlks_baby

I am glad you think we should have a common ground. But remember, when I asked Gwaine or one other person( I can't remember who exactly) to investigate the arabic language to verify the use of the plural to signify respect, and that person chose to ignore my entreaties, and some other muslim came to post exactly what I had said earlier, I told him not to bother since even the evidence I brought was not even investigated for validity, you came out all hard, instructing me on how nairaland was not an arabic school, and I couldn't force my beliefs on someone else, even inspite of my actually asking for a consideration of my evidence-meaning an objective critique and appraisal and not adopting a 'accept it or nothing posture'. You chose to interprete my actions as forcing down my belief on everyone else, now you see where I am coming from.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ajia23,

You're beginning to sound ridiculous and I'm actually embarrassed at your whimpering instead of going through my rejoinders. To make it a bit easier for you, ask yourself who actually first made the complaint of forcing their beliefs on others, before I responded? If you missed it, I repost here for you:

Did you miss that? You're only coming back without such rascal entries that one wonders what you've done with your reading skills. Allonym is complaining like he couldn't read to see the points I raised - that people who don't agree with Christianity are usually first to cry "people forcing their beliefs" on them; and unless one missed Reverend's post or is simply pretending it doesn't exist, then I can understand all the hoo-ha. And if you think that Christianity is more the issue here, I hope you didn't miss the fact that Reverend also threw out the Qur'an, unless you're assuming that he's more of a Muslim than a Christian?? If you're just as happy with people disrespecting your religion - Islam - then don't snivel at what people say about Muhammad; because the point is clear in allonym's questions:

There you go - celebrate any "offending/offensive" remarks made about Muhammad from people who are non-religious and non-Muslim, if that makes you happier.

In retrospect - I can't imagine I was that em. . . uhm. . . joo, paddy mi, ma bi'nu!! I'm sorry - truly sorry for being that unfeeling in my reply. No vex.

0
Avatar
Newbie

allonym

So you noticed too? If that observation came from me,, or any other muslim for that matter, they would have screamed bigotry till the heavens came down. Any time you make an observation about what holes seemed to be gaping in their arguments, what you get is an accusation of trying to force down your views on the, even when you are appealing that they investigate responses to their query, they say you are trying to make Nairaland into an Arabic school. Typical isn't it?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@allonym,

I'm not surprised that you'd come back and display some prejudice already. "Here, it is always the christians who claim someone is forcing their beliefs on them," you said? Then you assume Reverend is a Christian - just because he goes by that user ID? Please, scroll back and re-read his entries, especially his most recent on this thread.

'Holding on to some silly idea' could also be viewed in the context of what one believes as a non-religious person, because on most occasions when discussing with people on various fora, I find they cannot logically defend their choices. The best they could do is either resort to denial of what they don't know nor understand about religion and spiritualty, and I could respect them for that. However, you may not see a need to respect people's views, choices or persuasions in religious contexts - and to therefore disrespect their beliefs or persuasions is rascally, to say the least. Even when I disagree with you or your views, how should that warrant a disrespect towards you or what you believe?

The problem with bigotry (intolerance of differing ideas or beliefs, prejudice) is basically that it's unethical in all its forms. Even when you don't expand it to include people going out to kill others, bigotry against someone's belief is as unethical as disrespecting them for that - just because they are religious and you are not. Of course, I can't make sense of people killing others for whatever religious convictions they hold - and more often than not, I disavow and decry such tendencies, and try to do so respectfully. Talking to and holding dialogues with people (as you are doing here with me) could and should promote tolerance and understanding across board, as long as we show deference both ways and not resort to unethical means of conveying our views. Big difference, wouldn't you agree?

0
Avatar
Newbie

the bible does not contradict itself but d problem it's just that d body of christ is divided.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Except, it is the opposite on this forum. Here, it is always the christians who claim someone is forcing their beliefs on them.

Hmm, i see. Except there is a problem. If you are holding on to some silly idea, I don't feel a need to respect it. If you cannot logically defend your choice, I don't feel a need to respect it. Bigotry is definied as: Prejudice carried to the extreme of overt hatred, often carried to the point of violence. I suppose if the more I talk to a person, the more I feel they don't have an ounce of sense in their heads, I will begin to ignore them and think they have nothing worthwhile to contribute to future conversation. But. . . everybody develops those kinds of prejudice. However, bigotry is more than the normal human prejudice to things they don't like or are not interested in. Bigotry includes overt hatred. I don't hate people I disagree with. I don't go out attacking them on the streets. The bigots are the people who go out and kill christians or muslims just because they disagree with them being christians or muslims. I'm here talking to you about it, there is a big difference!

Showing deference to people's beliefs comes from us living in a world where if you are not careful who you are speaking to, you could end up dead for speaking contrary to some person's religion.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Exactly - for the one who disagrees with Christianity is usually first to cry "people forcing their beliefs" on them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

In just the same way that when discussing with non-religious folks we respect their convictions/persuasions and not think them classified as hogwash. Common sense should tell one just where to draw the lines between bigotry and deference to the convictions that people hold.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I see this a lot on this forum, especially in religion posts. I'm not going after you mlks_baby, I want want to put it out there for everyone:

Why should we show deference to religion beliefs, especially in a forum to them, to the point where we must veil our issues with them in nice nice language? I can understand wanting people from refraining from saying idiodic things like - so and so ate dogshit. . . but should we need to censor ourselves that much?

When people have a discussion over politics or sports, there is no such caution every issued. Why should we treat religion with kid gloves? If I already think your point of view is hogwash, how can I be expected and why should I be expected to be ultra nice and attempt to avoid "offending" you?

0
Avatar
Newbie

It is sad that some people feel that expressions of disagreement constitute people forcing their beliefs.

lol, its always the same:

A: Yeah, christianity is mostly crap

B: Oh yeah, prove it!

A: Ok. . . long list follows

B: Damn you trying to force your ideology onto me!

A: but. . you asked me to. . . and i didn't really force anything. . .it was a list. . .and you don't have to read it. .

B: Damn you heretics, infidels, heathens, etc, if you disagree with my view of religion, you should shut up, not post!

A: Huh, doesn't this defeat the purpose of a FORUM or DISCUSSION?

B: No, the word of God is absolute, there is NO discussion.

A: ?? . . . and they say I'm crazy. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ reverend

Thanks very much for your advice. I can assure you that I am as straight as can be, and I will not even stick my sausage into anything until I get marrried. So, I am safe and perfectly home to the Sharia law.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Alija23

I do not feel threatened by sharia law for two good reasons:

1. I am not gay (other than in the happy meaning of the word)

2. I would never choose to live in any such backward and illiterate nation.

I can understand though that Muslim men must be running scared as it is a well known fact that a large majority are homosexual or have homosexual tendencies or leanings with the vast majority being into young boys (or camels).

I think the whole reason that sharia outlaws homosexual activity is to try and portray to the West that this activity is non existent in Islamic countries, when in reality the majority of Muslim men are secret closet gays, chutney ferrets, pooh pokers and Bottom bandits!

Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in only Iran since their revolution in 1979.

10 public executions of homosexuals were performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.

The Taliban were divided on the exact method of execution.

Some thought that they should be thrown off the highest building in the city; others suggested that they dig a pit beside a wall, put the convicted in the hole, and topple the wall upon them. From various news reports, they settled on the latter.

Below are a few links about gay Muslims and Homo Islam for your entertainment or education:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1974216,00.html

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/gaymuslims.html

http://gaymuslims.wordpress.com/

@ Ajiya23

Be careful you are not caught with your trousers around your ankles and your little Islamic pork sausage up something it should not be!

You might Just find yourself being thrown from the top of the highest building in the name of the all merciful Allah the homo hater!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Interesting,

I understand why the reverend feels more threatened with Islam. Islam will effectively and efficiently carry out the punishment for sodomy on him than christianity would. My advise, please avoid countries that practice Sharia law, otherwise, it may just be you that amnesty and other will be shouting about.

0
Avatar
Newbie

. . . And if the gallows are the best recommendations you could make in my case (I hope not), then so be it.

In the absense of any other issue, peace.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't think this should begin to be a personal issue. People state their views and even try to persuade others to their point of views, whether by way of invitation, solicitation, arguements, debates, or even sadly by acrid language - and Christians are often accused more than anyone else about that, which is simply not the case. I didn't state my points in any vitriol, did I? And I certainly don't endorse reactions that are derisive or outrageous: if I've nothing to contribute in a particualr thread, I just move on, whether or not people send caustic missives my way.

I haven't tried to persecute you, have I?

I haven't tried to force my views on you, have I?

On every item you tick off the list, don't be surprised that others would call your attention to the fact that they have been enduely misrepresented as well.

I don't see the cause of your agitations, even bearing in mind that you feel somewhat 'persecuted' or otherwise belaboured upon to accept someone else's views/beliefs. You complain of people persecuting you, but go through your posts here and in other threads and ponder on this: have you not done the same to others by disrespecting their beliefs?

No, I didn't persecute anyone or force my views down anyone's throat. I avoid any display of disrespect for people by not deliberately calumniating their persuasions. Where anyone complains that my views have calmuniated or vilified their beliefs, I've often sought to maintain dialogue and tender apologies where appropriate. Questioning people's belief systems isn't the same things as vilifying them, and there's a thick line drawn between them.

In anycase, Rev, try another approach: show some more deference to the beliefs of people, particularly Christians and peace-loving Muslims, and let's see if anyone would come back with the invectives you decry. If they do, it'd be sad. As far as I've offered my reaction to your post here, would you still consider me a persecutor fit only for the gallows?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Mlks_baby

Everybody has the right to put across their views. If that were not the case then this would not be a forum!

But if I could have a penny for every time someone in this forum has written such things as:-

"How dare you ask such a question"

" You are going to burn in hell for saying that"

" This topic should be removed from the forum"

I would be a very rich man. I am never have and never will push my own agenda as I do not have one.

My only point is that you should state your point and not try to persecute or force your view on anybody.

All religions are guilty of turning people against each other and that is a sad fact. We are forced to hate or despise our fellow humans based on their beliefs. Every religion preaches peace but is responsible for untold suffering.

Maybe it is time to question what is the real evil in this World!

Peace

0
Avatar
Newbie

However you look at it, to be pedantically on a trail to push your own agenda is to do the same you accuse others of doing - pushing one's belief/views down people's throats.

What is your persuasion - that there are many inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. Okay. And what is mine - that I don't see it that way because it has proven its power in my experience.

We're both pushing our ideas from opposite sides, and so far as I haven't legislated against your liberty to do yours, even though I don't agree with you, it doesn't make any sense that my quoting one verse to show my position should cause the uncomfy feeling of a pebble in the shoe.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@mlks_baby

I hope you will also have noticed by my previous posts that I do not try and force my opinion on anybody!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Rev,

Kinda thot U'd come up with something better. I just offered why for me the claims of the Bible hold true in my life and experience; and if you felt taken by surprise about that, you're doing the very same thing you're accusing others of. You don't believe the Bible is the Word of God or true in its claims - good for you; then don't force that down other people's throats.

I really don't have a problem with people discussing ideas; but when the same rule is applied to those who hold differing views, suddenly it becomes somewhat tyrannical to them? You quoted verses from the Bible: I quoted only one - who's forcing anything down people's throats?

I know you don't believe in the Bible; my offer to the contrary shouldn't be translated as abnormal in just the way you took/take the liberty to force your own views down the throat of the public.

Cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why are you guys persecuting the reverend-if that's what he is for telling the truth? There are so many contradictions, and TayoD please don't try to explain yourself, as all your explanations about the contradictions always end up in 'it was Jesus that was being referred to'. Mlks_baby, good to know the spirit is poured fully into you. Reverend carry go. Only say i know say you no get good intention for doing it. You dey try justify your preferences for men- e no go work. My Religion say e no good to sodomise, so abeg stop am.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Lol, Rev.

I'm not surprised that you think the Bible is full of contradictions and errors - it's not new, and only those who refuse to see will continue to miss its message. It may seem so to many people, and there's no denying the fact that as a former Muslim, that was one of the missiles ferreted from skeptic websites I used against any attempt of Christians to share the Gospel of Christ with me. I dug into the Bible to fetch some more, and came across one verse in Proverbs that humbled my pride:

"Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you." (Proverbs 1:23).

I offer with deep conviction that without the Spirit of God, understanding His Word is absolutely impossible. That's why the idea of juxtaposing those verses in apparent contradiction is pivoted on the fact that man has refused to take God's offer of grace in Proverbs 1:23.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Despite the various interpretations, the Bibles meesage is consistent in all cases. This is what has been addressed on this forum. There is no contradictions in the Bible, just various interpretations. These are two difernet issues.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Reverend,

I think you need to point out your grievenaces one at a time.  Copying and pasting all these information from another source isn't going to help as I'm not going to go thrugh all with the limited time I've got.

But let me answer some for starters.  The issue of the order of creation is something I've dealt with before on this forum.  The accounts in the Book of Genesis starts with a summary of creation in chapters 1 and goes back and forth between days.  This is what is confusing you.  You need to do a better study.

The light in Genesis 1:3 has nothing to do with the sun.  This is the light of divine life where God now permits His revelation to go forth.  It has nothing to do with the solar light and darkness.  This light is mentioned in the New Testament as the one that shines and dispels unbeliefs in unbelievers.  This darkness is also mentioned in the new Testament as a chain of darkness which is keeping the fallen angels in custody.  You need revelation my friend.  And by the way, a study of the Hebrew words will reveal to you that this light was told to manifest.  The word reveals that that light was already existing before that time.  it wasn't created like the other creation in the days following.  That should tell you that it was actually the Christ in His pre-incarnate glory that the Bible was refering to there.  Rememebr that in Him do all things consists and everything was created by Him and for Him, and in Him we live, move and have our being.

Your point of God being pleased or not doesn't make sense at all.  He was pleased with what He created and was displeased with what it became.  How straight-forward can that be?

If you understand that a day before God is like a thousand years, then you will not expose your ignorance to the general public about Adam dying in one day (whichbefore God is like a thousand years).  and by the way, adam died immediately spiritually.  God had to ensure that his body remained for a while in order to complete his salvation plan.

If ve was created sometime later, could that later not be within the same day?  Think my friend.

I do not have the time to tackle all these issues, but the afrementioned already shows that you lack revelation knowledge.  Please pray that God should open your eyes to see.  I'll get to more of your statement as i'm opportuned to.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Reverend,

There is absolutely no contradiction in the Bible. The entire message remains the same from Genesis to Revelation. please give instances where you find such contradictions.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The Bible is full of contradictions and to be honest, what else can we expect after thousands of years of manipulation, bad translation and poor interpretation by thosands of different people for as many different reasons.

But the biggest fairy story collection and without doubt the King (or Queen) of contradiction has to be the Quran!

It has to be the greatest work of fiction ever written. If contradiction was know by another name it would surely be called the Quran!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Eh? Perhaps it can be argued that the bible does not contradict itself, and the contradictions arise due to different ways of interpreting it. Since the people most concerned with doing the interpretation are christians, then, in order to validly make the argument that the bible does not contradict itself, it MUST be the christians who are in conflict.

There is more proof that christians are in conflict (independent of any potential biblical contradictions) For example, there are catholics, protestants, under the catholics - there are roman catholic, anglicans, etc, under protestants. . .well, that could take forever listing them all. This suffices to say, there is definitely some conflict among christians.

Even more proof, I am a christian - look at most of the threads (especially in the religion) section in which I was involved - you will definitely see some conflict!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Nothing new - the Qur'an has more inconsistencies that have been explained away subjectively as well; so try not looking away from that fact.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ owo

This still remains to be proven. I certainly know that trying to explain the contradictions away by using such ideas as have been posted here simply confirms that there is a confusion, and people are trying very hard to explain the unclear areas subjectively.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Having 'dispatched' all 'issues' related to this topic, Do we take it that it is generally agreed that Christians are not in conflict neither does the Bible contradict itself.?

I stand up to be counted as one that strongly believes that the Bible does not contradict itself neither are Christians in conflict

Where do you stand?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thanks for the compliment allonym. It is well appreciated.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I like the way you think, TayoD

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ TayoD

This is simple logic. If Judaism is from God, then Christianity which also derives it's root is from God, only we believe both messages from God have been corrupted.

I found it hard to understand what you mean by the "prophets". Are these another scripture? Muslims only recognise The Torah (Book of moses (ASW)), The psalms, The Gospel, and the Quran.

Muhammed (SAW) did not come to change the Bible-He came to confirm what was in the original Bible after it had been altered many times by man, especially the enemy of the Christians at that time-The Jews. So his mission was to restore the gospel to it's original form.

All those quotes just confirmed what I said earler about the Comforter being Muhammed (SAW). I think the original meanings were altered to give the satements ambiguity so that Christians will reject the Prophet (SAW). The Sipirit of God (Ruhulah (ASW) ) sometimes called Gabriel, came to reveal to Muhammed all Jesus (ASW) said but wit modifications and corrections. It will interest you to know that we believe in the Spirit of God, but it is not another god, but part of God. Just like God breathed His Spirit into Mary (RAA), and into Adam, He sent this Spirit to Muhammed to reveal the truth, the Quran (God's word) to abide with man forever. Don't you sometimes wonder that the Bible was not written by Jesus (ASW) himself? While books like the Torah were written directly. The Psalms was also written during the Time of David (ASW). But Jesus knew his teachings will be confirmed by the Comforter, and then it will be written down. That's why he told his disciples to wait for the Comforter. But Idon't think he Said in Jerusalem ( I may be wrong).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Kismat,

It's funny when a muslim begins to preach about who Jesus really is. Why don't you worship Him if u believe Him? Afterall, the Koran agrees that He was without sin.

Christians play by the rules written in the bible but if that was all we had, most of us would have given up. The Holy Spirit is Who makes christianity real to a man.

This Christianity/Islam debate is of no use, as we can never find a meeting point. The both religions are different and we might as well learn to live with that. I don't know what is expected of muslims, but christians can't please God by going thru the Koran to look for contradictions, or debating over such issues. God has sent us to preach the gospel of JESUS, not to look for holes in other religions. I think there's a place in the bible where Paul advised against such debates. I'm not sure, but i'll check for it. I sincerely believe that there is no need to waste time trying to defend our faith to someone who just won't listen. We can achieve much more by praying for them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

to answer the original question, the bible is against all forms of sins. christians should strive to be free from all. I believe why christians tend to lay more emphasis on sexual sins is that they enslave a man probably more than others. If you read thru Proverbs, u'll see that Solomon (the wisest man with a lot of experience on the issue) believed that adultery/fornication/sexual sins are a fast way to hell, death, grave. Romans 21 indicates that homosexuality is a sign that ppl have rebelled against God. It's only natural that christians should take extra precaution against such. However, I believe that we need to focus on other sins too.

About the laws concerning master/slave etc. Those were cultural laws i.e. they applied to the cultural situation of the Jews at the time. Notice that in the New Testament, the apostles just preached the gospel of Jesus to the gentiles. They were not required to carry out the Old Testament laws, which were cultural laws for the Jews. It would make more sense if u consider that the Jews had no King other than God at the time the laws were given. God was their ruler, they were a new nation and He was giving them laws concerning all aspects of their lives. You can think of it as parents teaching an infant what is best to do. If master/slave relationships still existed (in the same form as in biblical times), a christian master or slave would have to obey Paul's admonition to masters and slaves.

As to whether christians are in conflict, i don't know what exactly you mean. If you're talking about denominationalism, it's more like different ppl from different backgrounds seeing/hearing/reading the same thing and coming up with different interpretations.

0
Avatar
Newbie

ajia23,

You have shown how confused Islam and indeed Mohammed was about Christianity.

The only reason we do not believe in Mohammed is because he is fake and not of God.  he came telling us an Angel spoke to him and we've been warned of people like him in the scriptures in Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."  We've already being warned of the devil coming in the form of an angel of light  2 Corinthians 11:14 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

So since when did Mohammed become the Spirit of truth.  And by the way, He told the Disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the Comforter.  Since when did Saudi Arabia become Jerusalem?  You ere my friend.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ owo

Dear Owo, I bet you must realise that you limited the scope of your arguement here, and this is not typical of you. But let me go into details to make you see your error. You are right that Islam has as it's basis some aspects of Judaism, and Christianity, particularly the references to earlier monotheistic faith. This is because Islam is not new, but a rebirth of the oldest religion in the world-monotheism. It also goes further to prove that by genealogy, the three religions are from the same source. Only that Muslims believe the message of Judaism and Christianity were altered by man. But you were wrong to assert that christianity is "something new" as even you know that Christianity came to the world because the Jews altered the Totah that was revealed to Moses (ASW) and instead started using their own versions of the revealed script to govern man and act like God. This is evidenced in their use of peripheral books written by their scholars instead of the Torah. And Jesus (ASW) came to call them back to monotheism and the right path. When Jesus was making his call, like Nferyn rightly pointed before about history, he never, not even in the Bible call to christianity. But in all Biblical references, Jesus called to the worship of one God. This to me is significant. That he prostrated in the manner that Muslim do today is not nearly as significant as this fact. It was after his demise that his followers thought to call themselves christians.

Now yet again, God had to send another person 570 solar years to redirect people to Montheism which He intended for man. Thus Mohammed(SAW) came. And he came to confirm in truth what had come before him, and also provide modifications to the previous laws that had been revealed before him. This in essence is why it seems Islam is based upon christianity and Judaism, while in actual fact, Islam is the reference from which Christianity and Judaism will be Judged. Islam is the world's oldest religion, and it connotes the worship of the One true God (monotheism). It was the religion of Adam, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus (ASW). It's just that the name became attached to it in the period after christ or so people think.

The only reason christians do not believe in Mohammed (SAW) is that like their predecessors the Jews, the expected Mohammed (SAW) to be someone like them. Unfortunately, God does not make it his point of duty to satisfy man and yield to his every whim. He works like they say in mysterious ways( oops that word mystery again). It is wrong for you to say Christians are not expected to believe in Islam, because there is a veiled reference9 by the way, methinks the veil was by man not God) to Mohammed (SAW) in the bible, where Jesus said, after Him God will send the Comforter. This is today misinterpreted to be the Holy Spirit.

So my dear brother, consider the facts and see if your previous assertions are still tight. The truth shall set you free!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

apostates and non-believers when Jesus said "do not resist an evil person"? 

Jesus didn't need to write any of the books to make it authentic!!  Why do you guys then believe in the Gospels when it wasn't written by Jesus.  If you believe in the Gospel of John, do you then believe in the letters written by John (1, 2 & 3 John)?,  If you believe in the Gospel of Mark, do you then believe in the Book of Acts writen by the same author?  Your confusion in Islam just seems to be growing in leaps and bounds.  And just to know, do you believe also in the Gospel of Judas just published?

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.