IG:

I personally think that Islam is more of a realistic religion.

How realistic is Islam as a religion, really? Consider the fact that there are so many questionable aspects of the life and teachings of the prophet Muhammad: if you fail to look at them, then it seems more realistic to you. However, the true essence of Islam is far from that. No religion can be properly judged by the deviant behaviours of some of its adherents. But when you look at their tenets/doctrines then it is pretty obvious that what you call 'realistic' is only a convenient look away from more involving issues. As an example, what is realistic about the contradiction in the freedom of religion in Islam?

     #  there is no compulsion in religion [Qur'an Sura 2:256]
     #  if someone converts from Islam, kill him [Qur'an Sura 4:89; Hadith Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57].
     #  no other religion is tolerated except Islam [Qur'an Sura 3:85].

There is nothing realistic about the obvious contradictions in real Islam unless one is deliberately ignoring them. You don't even want to read the hadiths to see the life of the prophet and the principles by which he operated in his religion. A sane man reading them would not come up in light of day to call them realistic. You may not like what you're reading in these lines, but all I'm asking is that Muslims take up these challenges and go to the Qur'an and the hadiths and see if these things are not so.

This is one principle of how realistic Islam is according to the principle that Prophet Muhammed received by revelation from Allah:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has
the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and
give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for
Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." [Hadith Volume 1 Number 24].

IG:

Going back to the issue of differences or similarities between Islam and Christianity, the King Negus when he first heard of Islam from Muslims he later offered protection said that :
If there is any difference between your religion and our religion, then it is the cross
The word cross here refers to the death and rise of Jesus. So that's the fundamental difference.

You yourself know that there's a fallacy in that idea, because you first stated that:

IG:

Please it should be noted that muslim's view of Islam is not like christian's view of christianity.
In Islam, Prophet Muhammad is considered a leader and a prophet and not "God" unlike christians view of Jesus.

As far as king Negus could see, the Cross was the fundamental difference. Indeed, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ are pivotal to the Christian faith; but more than that is the true identity of the One who hung on that Cross. King Negus should have realised that the Cross is not a strange concept to Islam because the Qur'an does not deny the crucifixion: it only supposes that someone was substituted in place of Christ. The fundamental difference between both faiths is that Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the Son of God - and that is the heart of Islam's quarrel with Christianity.

If Jesus Christ had been just another prophet like Muhammad, the Cross would have been meaningless to Christians. There were two others that were crucified with Him on that very day, but their crucifixion did not even atone for their sins. The core of the issue is the fact that the One who hung on the Cross between the two thieves is none other than the very Son of God. That confession was what led to His having been condemned at the trial; it was what maddened the crowd that wanted to do away with Him; and it is the very same confession that the Qur'an quarrels mostly against than any other crime in Islam - and when you add the fact that the Da Vinci Code and several other contemporary efforts are targeting that confession, you wonder that there's something to it about Christ being the Son of God.

This is the fundamental difference between the two faiths, and it is in fact what sets Christianity apart from other faiths - Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.

That is the starting point, and it is the bedrock of any other issue one may investigate between the faiths. The teachings of Jesus and Muhammed contrast sharply, and king Negus should have known better.

if someone converts from Islam, kill him

Please quote the verse.
Note unlike christinanity, Islam is a way of life. Islam to a muslim is like a nationality to a citizen. Poeple get killed for treason. So if you want to convert from Islam, it's as easy as leaving the Islamic territory before converting. A companion of the prophet once did the same. He became a christian after going to Abysynnia. The prophet never sent anybody to kill him.

no other religion is tolerated except Islam

please stop intentionally misquoting the qur'an. The verse goes like this
"The only religion in the sight of Allah is Islam".

@mlks_baby, I'm happy to hear that you were once a Muslim but its unfortunate and surprising that Islam doesn't answer most of your questions. Maybe it has to do with the type of questions, you were asking.

Before settling for Islam, I once had so many questions and studied different religions for answers.
Christianity and Islam were the religions I studied most.
To be honest, christianity raised more questions than give answers.

First of all, I discovered that christianity is not for me because I'm not Jewish
for Jesus said:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Isreal"
-Mathew 15:24

Although many christians rely on the following verses for preaching christianity to the whole universe;

"Go therefore and make disciples of poeple of all the nations baptizing them"
-Mathew 28:19

"Go Ye Into The World And Preach The Gospel"
-Mark 16:15

The Sinaitic the vatican no. 1209, the Sinaitic Syriac codex and the Armenian versions
of the fourth and fifth centuries do not contain these passages. In essence the verses
were later added to justify preaching christianity to non jews.


Then I am expected to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God because of his
Miracilous birth. If that is the case then why will Jesus be special when there
are other children of God before him. Check out the following verses:

"And Thou Shalt Say Unto Pharaoh, This saith the Lord, Isreal Is My Son, Even My First Born"
-Exodus 4:22

God said to David
"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; This day I have begotten thee"
-Psalms 2:7

Although many of my christian friends told me that the old testament shouldn't be taken seriously.
If so then check out

", to them gave he power to become the sons of God"
-John 1:12

And to my understanding, the following verse clearly shows that Jesus is not God
and does make mistakes (ie he's not clean) because he is born of a woman.

"How then can man be justified with God?, or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?"
-Job 25:4

The following shows that Jesus worshipped God and therefore can not be God.
", Here, O Isreal: The Lord our God Is One Lord"
-Mark 12:29

Furthermore I have not came across any part of the bible that Jesus declared himself
to be God.

I can go on and on.
The point here is that when studying religion we should open our minds and try to be as objective as possible.

Well, that might just be my point of view.
Please convince me otherwise

@mlks

Just so that you will realise your perfidy, and will in the future stop quoting wrongly or misquoting out of context Qurannic verses. Please all look at the preceeding verse, the quoted verse (quoted by mlks_baby to support her assertion that the Quran orders death to anybody that converts from Islam), and the following verse, and tell me if this verse talks about anybody who reverts from Islam?

Quran 4 Verse
87
Allah! there is no god but He: of a surety He will gather you together against the
Day of Judgment about which there is no doubt. And whose word can be truer
than Allah's?



Fight against hypocrisy and
hypocrites
88
Why should ye be divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah hath upset
them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of
the way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the way never shalt thou find
the way.

89
They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do and thus be on the same
footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of
Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades seize them and slay
them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from
their ranks.

90
Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of
peace) or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you
as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased He could have given
them power over you and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw
from you but fight you not and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace then
Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Now this verse definitely refers to those who accepted Islam, and were pretentious about it by aligning with the pagans secretly to fight the muslims. They were not converts, but rather hypocrites. And you can see that in the following verse, God says if they incline to peace, it is a sin to fight them. And it can be inferred from these verses that the order was reactionary. It had nothing to do with christians or Jews, it was revealed against some certain people who accepted Islam for material purposes and when they failed to achieve their aims, the still claimed to be Muslim, but were actually leaking secrets to the Pagans that were fighting the Muslims.

Now you see that the Quran cannot be interpreted in Isolation without the Hadiths. Also, I see mischief in the way mlks_baby quoted this verse while linking it to converts. This is needless.
I am quite happy that IG has corrected the other verse that was misquoted. Please desist from using such unbecoming tactics, it will not help your case and will only reveal that you mix up falsehood with ambiguities to pursue your agenda.

@IG

Please quote as much as you can from their Holy book, just to show them that indeed it is not as perfect as they think, and may be, just may be, we may get mlks_baby back. You are right about her misquoting and mis interpreting the Quran.
The funny thing is that the rule is to kill anybody who reverts from Islam, and claims to still be within Islam but introducing heresy into the religion. For most practical purposes, a muslim converting to christianity may not be hurt if he chooses not to be governed by the Sharia.

Also you cAN SEE how TayoD and mlks_baby tactically avoided the issue of pacifism which the bible preaches. Nobody would readily agree to lead that kind of peaceful life, meaning it is unrealistic, and I am sure neither of them readily subsribes to that doctrine otherwise, they would not have traded insults with Ajisafe earlier.

From now on, I will react to one issue after the other and only if they are put down objectively as I have discovered that mlks_baby delibrately tries to use technical points and sometimes outright falsehood by misquoting and  misinterpreting the Quran and holding on to discredited Muslim ideologies purposely to derive strenghts for her view of an argument. She neglects the history of the revelations she quotes, the circumstances of these same revelations, and most importantly the Hadith explanation of these verses which clearly puts the verses into proper perspective knowing fully well that the Quan cannot be interpreted successfully without the Hadiths. Using these Qurannic verses, she interpretes the verses to take her own meanings and then justifies her point. For instance, the Quran ordered a war against the pagans when the muslims had attained a number strength that could confront them after years of persecution, but @mlks_baby would rather see that verse as one ordering muslims to slay christians and Jews even when unprovoked inspite of my attempts to prove otherwise. She first acknowledges that I am right that it refers to pagans, but went on to state also that it also refers to christians and Jews, which the Quran did not state. This is totally unobjective and is akin to beating around the bush instead of hitting the nail on the head.

I am sure she will agree with me that I have not misquoted the bible as it is- even when I know that it has been manipulated, and I have not even misinterpreted it. But I have noticed  some delibracy in obfuscating issues, a lack of magnanimity to accept the truth when confronted with reality-even when it was proven from her very own statements and attempts to intimidate her opponents by a subtle untilisation of a carrot and stick approach. Notice how she tries many times to play on my vanity by using patronising remarks that imply that I have been rather peaceful unlike other muslims, and thanking me profusely for such as if I was doing something extraordinary or out of Islam. And at the same time, she hits me when I debunk some of her assertions by implying that I make noise and it is her duty to separate noise from talk, or other equally condescending remarks. The combination of these two approaches is a powerful tool for breaking your ooponent in an argument even when you do not have valid points to present, I know this, and thus far, I have been able to steer clear of this tactics. I therefore implore her that in future, complimenting or patronising your ooponent in an argument is largely unneccesary, and should be avoided at any cost.
On one hand she claims that by stating that Muhammad (SAW) is the seal of Prophets, the Quran was comparing him with others, and elevating him above them. Now, I want anybody to show how this is a comparison in the sense that she wants us to believe. Seal meaning last. is not equivalent to superior, except if she's not talking of Queen's English, however in Arabic, hatimal nabiyy or rosul certainly does not translate to being superior. She says since the seal means nothing then the Kalimah Shahadah also means nothing. I however failed to establish a sense of correlation between these two things. The Shahadah does not even mention that Muhammed (SAW) is the seal of Prophets, all it says is that he is God's messenger. How this relates to Muhammad (SAW) being superior is still a mystery to me. She asserts further that I sound like one of those who compare and retracts when I have not even attempted to compare in the first place. After failing to prove the Quran made a comparison, she went on to latch unto the Mahdi's statement even when it is clear that he and other scholars of his ilk have been declared non-muslim by their beliefs. She then justifies her position by claiming that the bible or christianity compares even quoting from the bible to support this. TayoD countered this claim and tried to set Jesus (ASW) apart but declaring a caveat that other prophet's could not be compared. She then compliments him without retracting her earlier statements, while stating that it is Muslims who compare. She refuses to unconditionally accept she was wrong to say invocation is not prayer inspite of incontrovertible evidence that it is. She goes further to posit by implication that saying SAW or ASW by muslims is equivalent to necromancy-meaning
1. The practice of supposedly communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to predict the future.
2. Black magic; sorcery.
3. Magic qualities.
How in God's name does saying 'peace be upon him' translate to engaging in necromancy?

She says because the translators use capital letters to define the Word of God -Jesus, that means that he is something special or the Quran thus compares or distinguishes between Jesus (ASW) and the others. This cannot be father away from the truth. Any attribute of God is referred to in capital letters in the interpretation of the Quran. So if the Word of God became Jesus, then it has to be translated in capital letters. She also takes it upon herself not only to know the true christians, but also the Muslims with the correct views and interpretation of Islam, thus seeking to define how Islam is to be interpreted. This is inspite of I being a bonafide Muslim telling her that some muslims commit faux pas when they take certain actions, she'll explain that away by saying things such as 'not many muslims share your views' suggesting that I were some kind of Minority muslim with views at variance with the majority of muslims. Yet, not one person has come to challenge what I say about Islam on this thread. I posit therefore that as a holder of the aqeedah of the ahlu-sunnah wa Jama'a, I represent the correct Islamic Ideology. Where I err , it is completely my error, but much of what I say is the Islamic position on these things.

So you see from the matters arising that mlks_baby has lost track of the original objective in her bid to show that Islam is fraught with errors and muslims are on the wrong path, while making pretensions to being logical, peaceable and knowledgeable. It remains to be seen if she will amend her tactics.

@ mlks_baby

I went to check out the Hadiths you quoted, and I can say that you did not complete quoting. There are many books of hadiths in Islam, and I expected you will say Al-Bukhari before the volume and number, because this is indeed where you quoted those sayings from. Now,the explanation, after he (SAW) had preached to them (pagans), and they refused to accept, but instead chose to inflict severe punishment on the Muslims, God then ordered that he fight them till they accept God. They did not have the option of remaining pagan. They could however have been christians or Jews who were not persecuting the Muslims, in which case they'd have been let free to practice their faith. The second Hadiths about Ali is explained below, though it is again concerned with atheists as the Arabic word Zanadiqa means atheist.

However, IG is right that a person that converts from Islam is regarded as a treacherous person and should be treated as such. Islam is a nation and a government and muslims, it's citizens. So it is generally seen as better to put the person to death if he is sane . He will be spared the torment of the hereafter. That is the Muslim belief based on hadiths and I am not apologetic about it.

ajia23:

Please quote as much as you can from their Holy book, just to show them that indeed it is not as perfect as they think, and may be, just may be, we may get mlks_baby back. You are right about her misquoting and mis interpreting the Quran.
The funny thing is that the rule is to kill anybody who reverts from Islam, and claims to still be within Islam but introducing heresy into the religion. For most practical purposes, a muslim converting to christianity may not be hurt if he chooses not to be governed by the Sharia.

@ajia23,

Please try harder to get me back; but no thanks - I'm not as confused as you choose to be when referring to yourself as a "polytheistic montheist worshipper" - Christianity isn't that confused. I don't mean to be rude, but as long as you choose to conveniently close your eyes to the violent nature of Islam from its roots established in the Qur'an and hadith, there's little anyone can do to help your case. If anything at all, Christianity in the NT is nothing violent like what the Qur'an says about Islam as subsequently demonstrated in prophet Muhammad's life.

As to the other issues that seem to be your worry, please understand that I did not tactically avoid the issue of pacifism or any other concern you raised. That pacifism is the love of peace and opposition to war is fundamental to my Christian faith - and the epitome of that is the Cross that Christ endured. It may sound unreasonable to you, but I'd rather be peaceful than violent.

In retrospect, I had enjoyed a calm discussion with you; but it's a bit quizzical that reason is beginning to give way to sly invectives - and that's not something I applaud. If you want to talk to me, do so simply; if there's nothing you'd like to contribute at this time, maybe I could enjoy some challenges from IG and others until something catches your interest consequently.

My very best regards.

@IG,

Thank you for your responses. I'll take up your concerns in stages as usual for easy reading.

IG:

if someone converts from Islam, kill him

Please quote the verse.

Qur'an Sura 4:89 - "They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

Hadith Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57

Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

IG:

Note unlike christinanity, Islam is a way of life. Islam to a muslim is like a nationality to a citizen. Poeple get killed for treason. So if you want to convert from Islam, it's as easy as leaving the Islamic territory before converting. A companion of the prophet once did the same. He became a christian after going to Abysynnia. The prophet never sent anybody to kill him.

Precisely - you've just prove my point: Islam is intolerant of other people's faiths and leaves no room for the freedom of choice of religion. Christianity is a way of life as well (John 14:6); but converting from Christianity to other faiths is not a felony or treasonable offence punishable by exile or death; and that is why the New Testament does not regard apostates as unfit citizens of their own countries wherever they may be.

IG:

no other religion is tolerated except Islam

please stop intentionally misquoting the qur'an. The verse goes like this
"The only religion in the sight of Allah is Islam".

That was not an intentional misquote of the Qur'an. Put them together and see:
"no other religion is tolerated except Islam" and "the only religion in the sight of Allah is Islam"
If they sound like two different things, please explain or elucidate on them as to how that is so. I'll even oblige you the full text in English:

Sura 3:85 - "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers." (Shakir Tr.). Muhammad followed through on this as shown in Hadith Vol. 9, Book 84, Num. 57 quoted above.

2nd Stage

I'll guarantee you that our questions are varied and different. For me, my investigation began by asking if the claims made in the Qur'an were consistent and not unduely stated, especially with respect to Christianity. I found a lot of gaps, and later realised that most of us have been reading the Bible out of context, among several other things. It is this particular issue of contextual reading that I'll seek to address your latest enquries.

IG:

First of all, I discovered that christianity is not for me because I'm not Jewish
for Jesus said:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Isreal"
-Mathew 15:24

If you read that in its context, you'll see at once that Jesus was indeed sent with a mission to the entire world, rather than just to the Jews alone. However, the principle that runs through the Bible is that the Messiah would be presented first to the Jews, and then next to the Gentiles. It was in that understanding that Jesus gave her that answer as in your quote, but notice that He also granted her request (see verse 28). Earlier, Jesus had made an offer to everyone, rather than to just the Jews: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28) - meaning that everyone (Jews and Gentiles) were welcome to Him.

Salvation is of the Jews, as Jesus declared in John 4:22; but this salvation is to the Jew first, and then to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). That is the principle that runs through the Bible, and every Jew knew this. That was why Paul went first to the Jews, and when they rejected the Gospel he once opposed as a Jew himself, he next declared: "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (that is, the Jews): but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13:46).

Salavtion in Jesus Christ is for all - Jews, Arabs, non-Jews of other countries.

IG:

The Sinaitic the vatican no. 1209, the Sinaitic Syriac codex and the Armenian versions
of the fourth and fifth centuries do not contain these passages. In essence the verses
were later added to justify preaching christianity to non jews.

Even when you ignore Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:15 for the moment, there are two things you're mixing up.

First, the Gospels are not fourth century documents, but first century writings. Following that, there are several early and latter Christian sects among the Syriac and Armenian quarters which disregarded whole portions of the NT texts. It may interest you to know that Muhammed was largely influenced by one of such sects - the Ebionites, who did not believe in the testimony of apostolic Christianity, and polarised to the epistle of James with convoluted interpretations. One amazing denial of the Ebionite sect was the deity of Jesus, and when you turn through the epistle of James, you find that this early Christian writer unequivocally mentioned the full recognition of Jesus' deity, calling Him "the Lord Jesus Christ" (ch. 1:1) and "our Lord Jesus Christ" (ch. 2:1). My point is, what the Ebionites denied, was in fact actually well established in the epistle they fastidiously prefered against the other documents; and Muhammed didn't check through but followed along with the denial.

Second, if the Sinaitic Syrians and Armenians in the fourth centuries tried to remove the texts you quoted, it was to their loss and could not be said to be latter additions to what was already in existence in the first century. Yet, it did not take away from the fact that the Gospel was meant to be preached in all the world. Look at the other verses that indicate this:

Luke 24:46-47 ~
"And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise
from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

Act 1:8 ~
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto
the uttermost part of the earth."

Now both Luke 24 and Acts 1 are first century documents that expressly state that the Gospel was pronounced by Christ Himself to reach the entire world. Buttress those with an earlier statement in Matthew: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matt. 24:14) - this is four chapters earlier than Matt. 28:19 that you supposedly decried.

Yes, the Gospel was to all the world - Christ said so Himself.

3rd Stage

IG:

Then I am expected to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God because of his Miracilous birth. If that is the case then why will Jesus be special when there are other children of God before him. Check out the following verses

First, Jesus was not the 'Son of God' because of His miraculous birth; rather, He was miraculously born because He was the Son of God (it's the other way round). The miraculous birth did not make Him the Son of God; it was rather that He was the Son of God that the miraculous birth was possible.

Now, all the other references you quoted should be read in their contexts.

IG:

Exo. 4:22 - "And Thou Shalt Say Unto Pharaoh, This saith the Lord, Isreal Is My Son, Even My First Born."

In Exo. 4:22, Israel is God's firstborn son in context of being the first nation that God called to Himself in redemptive and covenant relationship (see Deut. 4:34). In contrast to Pharaoh's biological son who would sit on his throne, Israel was symbolically called God's firstborn son (see Exo. 4:23 - And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn). This covenant relationship established on the basis of redemption was well known by the Jews and stressed all through the OT -

Isa 63:16 - "Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge
                  us not: thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer; thy name is from everlasting."

Isa. 64:8 - "But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all
                 the work of your hand."

IG:

God said to David
"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; This day I have begotten thee"
-Psalms 2:7

Again, read the whole chapter - God was speaking to David, but the message was not about David but about the Messiah. In other words, David was speaking prophetically about the Messiah. Read verses 8 to 12:

vs. 8 - "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
           and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Of course, this was not about David whose kingship did not extend beyond the nation of Israel. The only way you could understand this verse is in the declaration of Christ Himself in Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:8 (already quoted above) - through the Gospel, Messiah would inherit the heathen and people of the uttermost parts of the earth by winning their hearts with the gracious love of God, rather than by force of violence.

vs. 9 - "Thou [i.e., the Messiah, Jesus] shalt break them with a rod of iron;
           thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
This is in reference to Jesus and those He rewards as overcomers in Revelation 2:27 "And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father." The last clause relates Psa. 2:8 as well, because the Father responded to the Son's request of the heathen as his inheritance.

vs. 12 - "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way,
             when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that
             put their trust in him."
Now who is "the Son" in this verse? It could not be David, but rather the Messiah of whom David had been speaking. If there's any OT text that shows that the Messiah was also called "the Son" [of God] in recognition of His deity, this is an excellent verse for that, and you can't miss it unless one deliberately chooses to be blind to it.

And because of Who the Messiah is (the Son of God - Psa. 2:12), David pronounced a blessing upon all who put their trust in Him - that is, trust in the Messiah. None of the prophets could say that anyone should trust in them, but only the Son of God could make that declaration, as in fact He did in the NT - "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me." (John 14:1). The Gentiles also would trust in Him - "And in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt. 21:12).

sly invectives? Funny you should notice. It was delibrate to make you understand some of your earlier positions in proper perspective ( things like  talk from noise) etc. And I think you may have been referring to IG not Gl as you stated. As you will have observed, I am also given to peace, but only to the extent that it can be tolerated. In some wisesayings titled desiderata which I have used to be my guiding principle since I was small, there is this quote saying, As far as possible without surrender, be on good terms with all persons, speak your truth quietly and clearly  and listen to others,  I have listened to you, and I respect you and your intellect, but I couldn't help but notice all those subtle punches you threw. The discussion was better without them.

Now for that verse 3:85, the correct translation is
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

It does not connote what you said that 'no other religion is tolerated except Islam' Since youhave the Original translation, do not further translate or expantiate it by lifting specific vague statements or changing some words that change the thought of the verse completely. It is wrong to do that and you know it.

Like I said before I examined those hadiths and I have told you what they mean to a muslim and I am not apologetic about it.

I didn't refer to myself as a polytheist monotheist worshipper, but said if given a choice I would rather appear ostensibly to be polytheist when really I am monotheist, judging by your submissions that Islam is really polytheist as against it's claims to monotheism.

You also state your belief in pacifism,but you actually abused Ajisafe in earlier posts because he abused you first, now that's not a good example of sticking to peace against all odds is it?
If you felt slighted by my earlier posts, I didn't mean to be rude.

4th Stage

IG:

Although many of my christian friends told me that the old testament shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's sadly to their loss. Many people have told me in fact that there's no text hinting at the Messiah being the Son of God; then what about Psa. 2:12 just dealt with above? Anyone can be blind to the facts when they choose to be.

IG:

", to them gave he power to become the sons of God"
- John 1:12

This does not speak of deity of Christians - we become sons of God by faith in Christ as the whole context of that passage shows. When Jesus is called Son of God in the Bible, it speaks of nothing less of His deity, as John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

IG:

And to my understanding, the following verse clearly shows that Jesus is not God
and does make mistakes (ie he's not clean) because he is born of a woman.
"How then can man be justified with God?, or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?"
-Job 25:4

Don't make me laugh, dearie. Where in that verse you just quoted did it say that Jesus makes mistakes or that he's not clean? Even Islam does not teach that Jesus sinned or made mistakes, neither does the Bible. You should understand that Job 25:4 is a two-part question that expresses the amazement of the seemingly impossible in the natural realm. However, understand that only two men have come into the world without sin - Adam, who was created without biological parentage; and Jesus, who did not have a biological father.

In the case of the latter, He was born of a woman, but not of the seed of a man. That is why He is called "the Last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45). He is the absolutely holy one without blemish, and that is how the angel announced Him to Mary in the Bible: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35). This is why I stated earlier that the miraculous birth did not make Him the Son of God, but rather that His being the divine Son made the miraculous birth possible so that only Jesus was born without sin. It is only God that can bring the clean out of the unclean, because the One who was born of a woman was always the Holy One even before the incarnation.

IG:

The following shows that Jesus worshipped God and therefore can not be God.
", Here, O Isreal: The Lord our God Is One Lord"
-Mark 12:29

Jesus reiterated the commandment of Deut. 6:4 in your quote above; that verse did not say that He worshipped God - quote it as it is, please. Of course, there are other verses in the NT that show Jesus both praying (Matt. 26:39) and worshipping the Father (Luke 10:21). But do these verses establish the idea that Jesus was not God incarnate? Not at all. It was Jesus who showed that David by the Spirit called the Messiah "Lord" (Matt. 2:43-45). If the Messiah is "Lord", does that not establish the fact that the Old Testament recognized the deity of the Christ long before the incarnation - God taking up the form and experiences of humanity?

What you need to understand is that Jesus the Son sujected Himself to the will of the Father, but that did not deny the fact that He was actually God Himself. The writer of Hebrews astounded the Jewish Christians in quoting Psalm 45:6-7 in Heb. 1:8-9 to show clearly that the Messiah was called "God" in the OT.

              Heb 1:8-9 - "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of
              righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
              therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This has been in the Jewish scriptures even though most of them did not believe it. It clearly establishes the fact that the Messiah was God Himself. It is not only in the Psalms you will find this, but several other prophets attested to this by direct prophecy from God - Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10 to name a few.

Mlks baby
you Nigerian ??
where do you live ??
how old are you ??
you married ??
what you do for a living ??
how come you know so much about the bible and quoran ??

Finally

IG:

Furthermore I have not came across any part of the bible that Jesus declared himself
to be God.

And what have you done with those texts where He clearly said that He was the Son of God? If Jesus was the Son of God and He said so Himself, what does that mean in Islam? Take another example of your logic: Did Jesus ever say that He was the "Word" from Allah (KALIMET ALLAH) in the Qur'an? So, if He did not say so directly, why believe it at all then? You see, arguing by this fallacy does not prove your point. The case for Jesus' deity is the claim that Jesus is the Son of God: that designation alone is what Islam understands as pointing to the deity of Jesus the Messiah, and that is what He admitted to in the trial and His open declaration in His preaching (see again Mark 14:61-62 and John 10:36).

One more thing. The implication of the divine Sonship of Jesus is clear to everyone considering or investigating it: divinity points to worship. So, you may as well ask to come across any part of the Bible where Jesus claimed equal honour of worship as is ascribed to the Father: yes, He did - "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." (John 5:23).

IG:

I can go on and on.
The point here is that when studying religion we should open our minds and try to be as objective as possible.
Well, that might just be my point of view.
Please convince me otherwise

I've enjoyed the challenges you offered, and I hope you'll take the time to see that your concerns did not consider the contexts of the verses you quoted, as well that you arrived at the wrong inferences thereby. Some of the things you said were not in the Bible, were actually there by clear implication; and my claims about Islam remain as is: there is no freedom of religion in Islam, and the counter-claims of Muslims to the contrary is only cosmetic as long as the Qur'an and Hadith attest to the fact.

I trust that you would see I've been objective enough; it's up to you to be convinced or remain otherwise. With warm regards I simply ask that you check them out and consider the reality and peace of Jesus - the Messiah, the Christ.

@ mlks_baby
This is why I felt earlier you were being an artful dodger. You said something about Jesus referring (or not) to himself in the Quran once before, and I indeed took the pains to explain to you that Jesus is always discussed as a third person singular in the Quran, implying that he was never reported as saying ANYTHING directly in the Quran except what God said Jesus did or said. So, using the logic did Jesus say so,  and so,  in the Quran is dodging the real questions.

And since Jesus (ASW) did not call himself God in the bible, even by biblical accounts, he still remains son of God, not God.

And talking about questions, you had better respond to Nubian quickly. Seems like you have another admirer and I must say you have surely awed more than my humble self in your knowledge of both sides, even if you just consider the Islamic knowedge purely academic, which explains why you see things from the perspectives you view them.

nubian:

Mlks baby
you Nigerian ??
where do you live ??
how old are you ??
you married ??
what you do for a living ??
how come you know so much about the bible and quoran ??

@nubian,

Thanks for asking. I was a former Muslim and consider the questions and challenges from Muslims today as legitimate, because those were the very questions that were deep seated in my heart before I found Christ. I visited atheistic and skeptic websites to ferret more questions to counter the claims of Christians, but how did that help me? Until the day a guy that I fell in love with offered me a Bible on my birthday with just one verse written across the inside cover - Proverbs 1:23 - "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you." Although my boyfriend was killed in Iraq, his gentleness and calm in the face of certain death challenged me, and I wanted to know what kind of faith would make a guy smile in deepest suffering. So I took God's offer in that verse.

The day I gave my life to Christ can't be described in words. Prior to that time, my dad and brother who had both become Christians earlier, radiated such joy hitherto unknown. Today, my dad is my best friend, because he knelt by my side to lead me to Christ, and Proverbs 1:23 became a living reality to me!

From that day, this 25 year old Nigerian babe found new love, great courage, satisfying answers in Jesus - much more than I ever knew. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a theory to me, but a living power daily, and how my heart yearns to see my beloved Muslims come to know my Jesus - the authentic one who lives and offers His power to those who simply ask.

I now live in Sweden, but would soon be going to school for my Masters degree in Law. The admission letter came in this evening - would you rejoice with me?

Thanks again and God bless.

ajia23:

And since Jesus (ASW) did not call himself God in the bible, even by biblical accounts, he still remains son of God, not God.

What does Son of God mean to you as a Muslim, ajia23?

@mlks_baby

Actually as a muslim, I am made to believe God possesses no sons or daughters. So it is of no consequence when somebody says he is son of God. I recognise myself and other created beings as servants of God. I am very happy for you that you got your admission into the law faculty. I certainly feel you would make a very good lawyer, and I will be proud of you when you do become an outstanding and accomplished one. I am also sorry about your boyfriend's death. Except if he was a soldier fighting the Iraqis, I do not support the deaths of people unconnected with the war, irrespective of faith. And I posit that I am against in all it's forms wanton killings going on there perpetrated in the name of The One God which I serve. Even God will issue a disclaimer to some of the things being done there, it is most regrettable. But I would want to go further to say we can all put our hands together to liberate the opressed and the oppressors so that the world would be a better place.

I will also like to be your friend even beyond these discussions. I am on msn messenger if you'd like to meet me, then I would reveal somethings to you.

@ajia23,

Thanks for yours. I only asked that question because I was surprised that you came to the summation that Jesus "still remains son of God" despite all else. I didn't ignore your inputs nor was I artfully dodging issues, because most of what you were asking were already treated in earlier replies; and as you'll see from the challenges GL offered which I've dealt with.

In all, I'm grateful for your offer of friendship, although I'm not on msn at the moment (soonest perhaps).

Warmest regards.

So this debate can come to this end. Well thank God it did.
To everyone that took part, i say i enjoy your postings especially

@mlks babe,
I am touched by the death of your boyfriend, please accept my sincere condolence. I can really see from your postings that men,this lady has a passionate hatred for Islam and the Muslims. But i would like to say categorically that though your boyfriend died in the war in iraq, Islam and the muslims wouldn`t have been responsible to the untimely death.

Like i said in my earlier posting we should learn to respect other people`s views especially on religion. I wont fail to let you know that i salute your intelligence for your studies in both religions but i think you can do more than that like making people understand your view without making them look stupid for their beliefs.

Once again, may the gentle soul of your boyfriend rest in peace.

@ajia,
I enjoy your calm responses, you actually gave what you know and it`s in no where in your postings short of the Islamic teachings. My own understanding of the Quran about the world population is that there are three types of people, i) the Unbelivers, ii) the Believers and iii) the Hypocrites which constitute the larger population of the world, the Quran says alot about them and how they perpetrate their evils against the believers that is why today Islam suffers the pains of their misrepresentations.

But thanks to people like you who will come out to make the difference known to the world over.

Keep it up, May Allah reward you abundantly.

@TayoD,

I dont mean any harm, but i personally dont like your style. It is your type that can bring another Osama Bin Laden or cause another religious war. You use mlks babe as a shield to achieve your hidden motive which totally negate the motive you stated while beginning this debate. But i believe next time you will make amends because the Sky is very big to accommodate the birds to fly without touching each other.

@IG,

Your contributions actually mend the debate from derailing and retraced it back to the anticipated point of dicussion.

@nuru,

I took your silence not to be because you dont know what to say but because you had to take that bold and civilised step after you were being chickened out by the insult that your IQ was too low for the debate which nobody will tolerate.

I salute your boldness.

And to others that made their contribution. Well done all.

@ISAHO,

Thanks for your commiserations, but that happened in early 2004 - he was an engineer, and his brother a medical doctor: both were unfortunately at the wrong place at the wrong time when a car bomb exploded near them. He died a few weeks after the instant death of his brother, unshaken by his pain, and praying for those responsible till he breathed his last. I've healed from that now, and thank God for the grace.

And No, I'm not blaming this incident on Islam. My claims have not been informed by his experiences; and that's why I always try to play it safe by quoting the references for them without unnecessarily conjecturing what they don't say.

Second, I don't have a passionate hatred for Islam or Muslims. My aim has always been to offer challenges to my dear friends to check out my claims and see if they are in fact untenable. In the past I've made mistakes in the way I debated issues, but as I grow I learn a lot and try not to make people look silly. That would not translate into any sense of weakness to tolerate just about anything. I enjoyed the debates and challenges as well, and welcome any other that may follow.

No, I didn't think that nuru chickened out; and your conjecture may most probably be right. However, if he felt otherwise slighted by my counter about being slapped without a cause and/or parking at the middle of the road, I offer him my apologies and wish him well. Dialogue has always been my outlook - nothing more or less.

Please forgive me if it sounds like am raising dust after it has settled. I just want to give some biblical verses for us to ponder on. You don't really have to comment on them.

Talking about Islam ordering for the execution of converts. Look at the orders giving in the bible


"If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the which the Lord your God gives you,
a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant
and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of
heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you should inquire diligently,
if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Isreal, then you should bring forth
to your gates that man or woman who has done that evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to
death with stones"
-Deutronomy 17:2-5


And Stubborn children should be stoned

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his
mother, and though they chastise him, will not heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold
of him and bring him out to the elders of his city,
'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard' then
all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones, "
-Deutronomy 21:18-21

And some of us complained about death sentence being passed for adultery. Check out the bible again

"If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with
the woman and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from isreal"
-Deutronomy 22:22

"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress
should be put to death"[/b]
-Leviticus 20:10

And those that see amputation as violent

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better you lose one of
your memebers than that your whole body goes into hell"
-Mathew 5:30


The following verse I included because I discovered there are a few homos on Nairaland. If they still claim to be christians, then they should read the following;

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; and shall
be put to death,their blood is upon them"
-Leviticus 20:13

And if you don't believe beacuase it's in the old testament then look at what Jesus said about the
old testament

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them
but to fulfil them"
-Mathew 5:17

@TayoD, I always believe that Jesus(PBUH) is a peacefull person just like Muhammad(PBUH)
But some verses in the bible seems to suggest otherwise. Look at these,but please don't tell
anybody I told you of them

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace; but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and daughter against her mother, "
-Mathew 10:34-35

@mlks_baby, I must admit it's interesting discussing with you. I always enjoy such discussions. We can discuss Shintoism,Taoism,Hinduism e.t.c. You know as a Muslim the first command in my religion is "Read".
But unfortunately as a christian woman by participating in this discussion, you have committed a sin
If you don't believe me then check this verse out.

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness, permit no woman to teach or to have
authority over men. She is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first then Eve; and Adam was not
decieved but the woman was decieved and became a transgressor.Yet woman will be saved through
bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty"
-1 Thimoty 2:11-15

Or maybe I got the meaning reversed, you know for a person that doesn't have the holy spirit in him .

Look at how women are suppose to behave
"The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,but should
subordinate, as even the law says."
-Cor 14:34

@mlks_baby, just a lil question. Tell me have you never sang on top of your voice and danced in the church ?.
But again it may be my lack of the Holy Spirit. Or I may be possessed.Please I need an exorcist.

@TayoD, did you watch the movie "Matrix" ? remember when Morpheous told Neo that;
"I can only show you the door, it's up to you to walk through it".

Well I have shown you the door, but to be completely honest. I personally don't care wether you walk through
it or not. My duty is showing the door and I've done it. (Am a programmer not a preacher and I don't program humans like preachers do) .

I think this debate should end with a statement like this:
"Islam and Christianity Are Indeed Different But Can Once Again Coexist Peacefully As They Have Once Done"

@ISAHO,@ajia23, much respect.

Everybody be cool. Am out.

@IG,

I'd like you to think about the following:

(a) are you mixing up Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

(b) have you checked out the meaning of Jesus' words in the verses you quoted?

(c) judging from the lives of Jesus and Muhammad, would you equate Christianity with Islam?

(d) have you tried to look at the meaning of the words you quoted and compared them with other verses on the subject?

The first question should have an obvious answer: Judaism is not Christianity, neither could they be misconstrued with Islam. The question has been between the latter two, and together they claim to be based on, or derived from, the former. Consequently, it becomes pertinent to ask: what was intrinsically the message of each of them? If you mix up what was specifically Judaism and misconstrue it for Christianity, you get it all wrong.

The first question should have an obvious answer: Judaism is not Christianity, neither could they be misconstrued with Islam. The question has been between the latter two, and together they claim to be based on, or derived from, the former. Consequently, it becomes pertinent to ask: what was intrinsically the message of each of them? If you mix up what was specifically Judaism and misconstrue it for Christianity, you get it all wrong.

Judaism was a system limited to only one nation (Israel) and founded on a rigid law that could not make the worshippers perfect before God (see Hebrews 7:19). Was it then a faulty system from the onset? No, for according to the inspired argument of the NT, the problem was with man - our nature was carnal and could never keep the perfect Law of God (see Rom. 7:14) - and this was attested to by several texts of the OT. God knew this all along, but only allowed man to prove to himself how sinful he was; yet, He had promised long before the NT that He would provide a more excellent basis of relationship and woorship. It was this promise that the Old Covenant (OC) looked forward to.

Enter the NT. Christ came to give the Law its proper substance and significance - that is what He meant by "fulfilling the Law" (Mathew 5:17), and you only have to look at His sermon on the mount to see exactly what the Law implied (Matthew, chapters 5-7). There was nothing wrong with the Law, but the sinful nature of man many times contradicted the requirements of righteousness. Two things stand out in those chapters: (i) Christ raised the stakes by driving home the requirements of the righteousness of the Law where it ought to be apllied - the heart of man; (ii) He also established His authority as the Law giver who interprets the Law Himself (that is why you read in the last verse of chapter 7 that He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes). Even then, the heart of man needed a spiritual transformation that had to be wrought by God alone, not by a Law or code of religion. Only a perfect One could provide perfection for others; and that is precisely what Christ did in His vicarious death and resurrection (Heb. 10:14).

Question: If Christ is perfect and has provided a perfect sacrifice for man, why was there a further need for a new revelation of that which was imperfect? That is why Islam's claim to be based on the Scriptures of the Jews and the Gospels is weak, because it ignores the prophecies of the Old Testament that point to the real identity of the Messiah. The OT prophecies establish two important things that Islam denies: (a) that the Messiah is the Son of God (see again Psa. 2:12 for example); and (ii) the Messiah would give His life to atone for sins (see Isaiah 53).

Carefully consider this: even though Islam alleges that the Bible has been corrupted, if the Qur'an actually believes in the Scriptures of the Jews and the Gospel of Christ, what has it done with Psa 2:12 and Isaiah 53? No Jew who knew his religion well enough would have ignored the prophecy of Isaiah, and Jesus Himself quoted it several times in His ministry in the NT. Just stating that a document has been corrupted is a fallacy until the accuser provides proof of the original. So, what did Muhammed do with the Old Testament? He only accused it of having been corrupted, left no evidence of the alleged corruption, and conveniently ignored it - I offer that he did that for the simple reason that Islam was not based on Judaism or Christianity, but purported to have done so.

That said, I now take up some of the challenges you posted in your rejoinders.

Here they are. . .

The Deuteronomy and Leviticus Texts

Since Judaism is not to be confused with Christianity, those texts could not apply to Christians. I'll share with you why that is so.

Christ was confronted with this very issue of adultery in John 8. Should they stone her or not? His answer was simple, straight forward and consistent with His entire ministry and deportment: if you have no sin in you, be the first to cast a stone at her (vs. 7). That went straight to the intended spot - their consciences, and they left ( vs. 9). Now, did Jesus contravene the Law or not? I offer that He did not - He took that woman's sin in full compliance to the Law as the Sin bearer, therefore setting her free! That is why He was said to be the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

In anycase, Jesus did not come to establish a stoning Gospel, and Christians are not Jews under the Law.

What About Matt. 5:30? ~~
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better you lose one of
your memebers than that your whole body goes into hell

I'll offer you this was not a[b] literal[/b], but rather allegorical axiom well known to the Jews and those of His day who would clearly understand the import of His speech. Nor was it perculiar to just the NT. Examples of such axioms are found in the OT:

"And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God:
for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth
him of the evil" (Joel 2:13).

Of course, you wouldn't think for a moment that God meant for them to literally "rend" or lacerate their hearts with matchets or something simlar; rather, it was a very common expression of deep repentance very well known among the Jews. Such kinds of idiomatic expressions dated as far back as Moses' time, as for example -

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked" (Deut. 10:16)

. . . and that would not mean that Moses wanted them to literally tear out the membranes of their hearts. Romans 2:29 helps shed light on this type of axiom: "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter."

Christ was speaking in deep, typically Jewish idiomatic expression in Matt. 5:30, and not in a literal sense. It was a pointer to repentance of the deepest kind that holds back nothing in order to gain the ultimate - life! (compare Mark 9:43).

IG:

@mlks_baby, I must admit it's interesting discussing with you. I always enjoy such discussions. We can
discuss Shintoism,Taoism,Hinduism e.t.c. You know as a Muslim the first command in my religion is "Read".
But unfortunately as a christian woman by participating in this discussion, you have committed a sin
If you don't believe me then check this verse out.

First, I enjoyed discussing with you as well; and you're welcome to broadening the scope to include other religions like Shintoism, Taoism, Hinduism, Baha'i, or whatever else. As to the sin for which you want to hang me, let me clear myself. Look again at the verses you quoted in I Tim. 2:11-15 ~~

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness, permit no woman to teach or to have
authority over men. She is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first then Eve; and Adam was not
decieved but the woman was decieved and became a transgressor.Yet woman will be saved through
bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty"

Have you seriously asked yourself what context this applies - on Nairaland or in the Church? Timothy was well acquainted with the teachings/doctrines of the apostle Paul (2 Tim. 3:10); and the former knew that the apostle clearly meant those verses in a church setting. Compare them with 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ~~

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

So you see, Nairaland is NOT a Church, and mlks_baby is free to share what God has graciously granted to her, yes? Even then, consider that a woman is free to share Biblical issues with both men and women in informal settings outside church gatherings, as in the case of Priscilla, who with her husband expounded the way of the Lord more perfectly to the Jew Apollos (Acts 18:24-26 - Priscilla actually took part in the exposition, as the context bears out).

Unless you want to translate Nairaland to another Church (and I don't see how Seun would give in to that idea, regardless of any polls conducted), then your points do not hold in this context. Therefore, I think it is only fitting that I continue to share and discuss issues in this Forum.

IG:

Look at how women are suppose to behave
"The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,but should
subordinate, as even the law says."
-1 Cor 14:34

Thank you, and I just treated that above.

IG:

@mlks_baby, just a lil question. Tell me have you never sang on top of your voice and danced in the church ?.
But again it may be my lack of the Holy Spirit. Or I may be possessed.Please I need an exorcist.

I'd rather you don't put yourself in a difficult situation by touting the idea of possession and exorcism at yourself - just a friendly advice.

In anycase, yes - I've danced, raised my voice in glorious praise to God, prayed out loud and worshipped Him - all of which I still do in perfect compliance to His Word. Surrpised? Look well again - the Bible does not forbid women praying in the Church, neither does it muzzle our mouths from praising God together with the men; let me quote them -

Act 1:14 - "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women,
and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

1 Cor. 11:5 - "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth
her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
(This does not say that women should not pray in church - it only says women are not to do so without covering their head. Praying, singing, dancing, and teaching are not to be confused the one for the other).

IG, once again, many thanks for your calm rejoinders and hope that I've served you well in objectively presenting my case. I'm open to further dialogue.

God bless.

Mlks baby,

how come you know sooooooooo much bout the quoran ??
where do you live
are you married
how old are you
what you do for a living

Lol, Nubian.

I've tried to answer those questions before, and I'll cut and paste for you again:

@nubian,

Thanks for asking. I was a former Muslim and consider the questions and challenges from Muslims today as legitimate, because those were the very questions that were deep seated in my heart before I found Christ. I visited atheistic and skeptic websites to ferret more questions to counter the claims of Christians, but how did that help me? Until the day a guy that I fell in love with offered me a Bible on my birthday with just one verse written across the inside cover - Proverbs 1:23 - "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you." Although my boyfriend was killed in Iraq, his gentleness and calm in the face of certain death challenged me, and I wanted to know what kind of faith would make a guy smile in deepest suffering. So I took God's offer in that verse.

The day I gave my life to Christ can't be described in words. Prior to that time, my dad and brother who had both become Christians earlier, radiated such joy hitherto unknown. Today, my dad is my best friend, because he knelt by my side to lead me to Christ, and Proverbs 1:23 became a living reality to me!

From that day, this 25 year old Nigerian babe found new love, great courage, satisfying answers in Jesus - much more than I ever knew. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a theory to me, but a living power daily, and how my heart yearns to see my beloved Muslims come to know my Jesus - the authentic one who lives and offers His power to those who simply ask.

I now live in Sweden, but would soon be going to school for my Masters degree in Law. The admission letter came in this evening - would you rejoice with me?

Thanks again and God bless.

The only things I might have missed out are:

(a)status:
No, I'm not married as yet; still looking, but that will come way later 

(b)occupation
I work part time in a travel agency presently, and will soon be going off to school for LL.M.

Warmest regards.

Mlks baby,

i should have read previous posts - i would have found the answer to my questions

Was just curious about you , cos i had come across you on previous posts in the religion section.

stay strong

its nice "knowing you"

ajia23:


And since Jesus (ASW) did not call himself God in the bible, even by biblical accounts, he still remains son of God, not God.

The bible holds that He is the Son of God, and that He is God John 1:1 Christians believe the bible - everything in it. We believe that everything in it was inspired by God, so we dont judge by Jesus' statements only. However, Jesus inferred that He is God in different ways. One of the most significant - IMO - is in John 8. The Jews had been questioning His authority and He replied, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This is the name by which God introduced Himself to Moses and the Isrealites. They didn't use the phrase, "I AM" in speech out of reverence. It would have been blasphemous to use it anyhow. They understood that Jesus was applying the name to Himself, thus declaring His deity. They tried to kill Him for that.

When He was called God by Thomas (My Lord and My God) He didn't protest. He accepted the title. If He wasn't God, He would have protested, considering He was devout and never had been guilty of any sin, especially not blasphemy.

Even if you want to go about it logically, if He said He's d Son of God then that sets Him apart from all humans, since we all agree God isn't a human. That puts Him on the same level as God, like they're of the same species.

ajia23:

@mlks_baby

Actually as a muslim, I am made to believe God possesses no sons or daughters. So it is of no consequence when somebody says he is son of God. I recognise myself and other created beings as servants of God.

Considering that the original question was the similarities and differences btw C & I:

This actually shows how different Christianity is from Islam. The bible tells us that we, christians, are sons and daughters of God. Jesus actually said He isn't calling us servants, but friends. He says we're joint heirs with Him. If we suffer with Him, we would share in His Kingdom.

@nubian, many thanks for your encouragements. God bless and strengthen you more.

@GL, phew! I'd earlier mistaken you for IG, but rectified my oversight. Thank you for putting it concisely with reference to John 8 and the deity of Jesus Christ. That blessed my heart this morning, and God increase you.

@All, I've enjoyed the inputs from both sides of the discussion, and God bless y'all.

mlks_baby, it's not surprising that you've won the repect of many, and I just want you to know that you're an encouragement to many of us. I thought I knew - until I read yours; and just want you to be encouraged, because whatever one goes through is not in vain if one has an evident love of God. Congrats on your admission to read pursue legal studies; I've no doubt you'd make a good mark in your field.

And thanks to everyone who has contributed in one way or the other - all sides have made impact to make me think deeper.