₦airaland Forum

Adullam001, where are you?

Atheism is not the most rational and logical worldview.

In talking with atheists, do not examine the subject of divinity as a Christian would understand it to be, first. It's too high for them.

Examine with them the fractality of divinity; thier own worldview, and the rationale behind their worldview.

Christians, especially Nigeria's, need to solidify their knowledge base on atheism and the several worldviews before engaging any atheist.
If truly we believe God is truly God, then he must be a wise, intelligent, brilliant, magnificent being of an infinite (high) order, i.e, God is the God of Science itself. Therefore, shying away from talking with atheists, or not knowing much about the sciences is not what God would desire ultimately.

When you, the Christian can talk with the Atheist and see his/her worldview, you can then elevate the discussion to ethereal matters.

When you as a Christian talk to an atheist about Jesus and God, it sounds gibberish, not their fault nor yours, both of you just don't understand the syntaxes and semantics required to understand one another.

Find a common ground, as a Christian, since we want them saved by the power of God and experience the love of Christ and do same for others. Seek to understand their point of view.

On the other hand, I believe, Seraphicwind, your instructions should be employed when it's evident that atheist is prideful, arrogant, willfully ignorant. Some are just confused and want to understand, hence their criticism may be misunderstood, in every engagement, exhibit love (something science cannot really explain, or replicate), in any case, you will know if any party is not humble.

Nachmonides:
Fun fact:
The historical document with the most correlated manuscripts (copies or copies of parts of the document) is the New Testament. The New Testament has a vast number of manuscripts—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts alone, along with tens of thousands of early translations and fragments. This makes it the most attested ancient text in terms of manuscript evidence.


The works of Julius Caesar, Plato, and other ancient writers have far fewer surviving manuscripts—often only a handful in comparison to the New Testament.

Although this doesn't mean it can't be a lie. It's just a fun fact.

Fun fact:
The historical document with the most correlated manuscripts (copies or copies of parts of the document) is the New Testament. The New Testament has a vast number of manuscripts—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts alone, along with tens of thousands of early translations and fragments. This makes it the most attested ancient text in terms of manuscript evidence.


The works of Julius Caesar, Plato, and other ancient writers have far fewer surviving manuscripts—often only a handful in comparison to the New Testament.

Lucifyre:
Man you guys and gpt's. Don't know why you all rely on gpts to form your arguments, every single time. If i wanted to discuss with AI i would just do that on my device. Anyways even your response already shows the several problems with faith and proves what i said. And yes i have read, not even read studied the bible and not just that but the context around it using study bibles like the JPS Tanakh and New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha and materials from reputable scholars which unfortunately highlights the flaws.

Also i fail to see how my reading it or not reconciles the contradictions. Even right off the bat in the very first book you have contradictions. Contradictions that require you to renegotiate the texts in a bid to harmonize it which can be sometimes laughable. A pathway to truth that's not univocal?! Nah!

And no people don't accept the big bang and string theory on faith. They accept it cause it's demonstrable with evidence even if they don't fully grasp it. We have evidence of the cosmic microwave background radiation to demonstrate this. Also i never said faith is exclusive to religion i said it's mostly used in religious context there's a big difference. ALso there's no where else apart from religious context where faith is used to demonstrate truth. That's what i said.

The area where faith is used most is filled with so much confusion. We have at least 10,000 religions all claiming to be the right one. Of which a lot of people subscribe to these religions with faith and even in those religions you have denominations like the 45,000 plus of Christianity with claims where no 2 xtains agree on the interpretation of the texts from cover to cover.

Faith is subjective, Truth is objective, Faith is unverifiable, Truth is verifiable.... so it's flawed, rest is just semantics. Logic leads to verifiable objective truth. If faith is a pathway to truth how come so many subjective views?? Miraculous claims are dismissed from historical sources all the time to get the factual data. A lot of historical figures have mythological elements about them that are filtered out, even your cited sources which im sure if you read would have understood the diff between a mythological figure and a historical figure with mythological elements.

People believe stories about Alexander because he has numerous evidence outside the original claims. From other ancient docs from even people he fought to coins, inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts which same cannot be said for Jesus or 90% of biblical claims which one is meant to take on faith. Instead we find what makes the narrative questionable.

For example the census conducted during Jesus' birth when Herod killed new borns is not true, cause archaeological and historical evidence shows the census was conducted 10yrs after the death of Herod during the reign of Quiniruis. So the fact its based of evidence is mostly not even true lol! What evidence do you have for any of the extraordinarily faith claims in the bible. Talking animals, Exodus, Red Sea, Pillar of fire, Sun stanfing still, Flat earth?! Absolutely zero, instead what we find contradicts em instead.

Also the claim that Jesus' believers were willing to die ergo is true is apologetics 101. Is islam true because people are willingly die for the cause?? The gospels were not written by any eyewitnesses, they were written several decades after the events, and for such extraordinary events, no other sources records any of it save for the little mundane bits, zero detailed extrordinary bits

If faith is a valid method, there won't be 10,000 religions claiming they have the "right faith" and there won't be denominations claiming to have the right faith and killing each other for heresies. How come no consensus or objectivity? [/b]That's why faith debates fact and embraces opinions instead of the other way. And please lay off the AI regurgitated responses, it's doesn't come across well, to put it politely.

You seem passionate, but you are also dismissive, I think your positions are not airtight.
> On the matter of AI, I am giving a crafted response based on my consultation of scholarship commentaries, books and the internet, why? — I don't know everything. I won't take offence at that comment, also, it's unwise to think one referring to an AI is not "cool", it doesn't hold water. Let's stick to the arguments. Also my formatting may give off AI vibes, that's how I format my texts, it's been consistent since I joined NL. Blame it on my frequent use of the terminal, and programming.

[b]I, You claim faith is flawed because it’s unverifiable, while science is based on objective evidence. But science also operates on faith—faith in the consistency of natural laws, logic, and the validity of human reasoning—none of which can be scientifically proven. People accept things like the Big Bang not because they personally verify it but because they trust expert interpretations of data. That’s a form of faith.


II, You mention contradictions in Genesis and historical errors in the census under Quirinius. But contradictions only disprove literalism, not Christianity itself. Scholars (both believers and skeptics) resolve textual and historical discrepancies all the time—just like physicists reconcile contradictions between quantum mechanics and relativity.

Also, the claim that Jesus has no historical evidence outside the Bible is incorrect. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius reference Jesus and early Christians. If you apply the same historical standard to Jesus as you do to other ancient figures, you’d have to dismiss most of ancient history.

III, You argue that multiple religions prove faith is unreliable. But by this logic:

Competing scientific theories (e.g., quantum mechanics interpretations) would mean science itself is unreliable.

Philosophers have different views on morality, but that doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist.


Diversity of belief doesn’t mean all are false, just that humans interpret truth differently. The real question is: Which worldview best explains reality?

IV, You dismiss Christian martyrdom by comparing it to Islam. But there’s a key difference:

Muslim martyrs die for a tradition passed down centuries later.

Early Christian martyrs claimed to have personally witnessed Jesus risen from the dead.


People don’t willingly die for something they know is a lie. Their willingness to suffer and die for their testimony makes the resurrection claim unique.

V, You say biblical miracles lack evidence, but historical claims are judged by probability, not absolute proof. If supernatural events happen, they wouldn’t be the norm—that’s what makes them miracles. You don’t disprove them just by saying they don’t happen today.

Also, many historical events are accepted with far less documentation than the Gospels. If you dismiss biblical events on these grounds, you’d have to reject most of ancient history as well.


If you demand absolute scientific proof for religious truth, ask yourself:

Can science prove love, morality, or consciousness?

If multiple views disprove religion, why don’t multiple scientific theories disprove science?

Why dismiss historical claims simply because they involve the supernatural?

Lucifyre:
What does hoped for and evidence of things not seen mean if not exactly what it says. lol Science doesn't have faith in a black holes existence. Its demonstratable even if not seen. It relies on empirical observations and experimentation based on the constants of the universe which leads to testable, verifiable and falsifiable predictive models. Key word falsifiable. Absolutely not the same thing. Religion on the other hand relies on non empirical, unfalsifiable subjective sources with a lot of presuppositions and presumptions. Big difference.

You make an interesting point, but I think you're oversimplifying both faith and science. You argue that science doesn’t operate on faith because it relies on empirical observations, falsifiability, and testable models. However, there are a few things to consider:

I, So, black holes are not accepted because we "see" them in the way we see a tree or a planet. They are accepted because the evidence for their existence is overwhelming, even though they remain invisible themselves. This is similar to how we accept the existence of things like dark matter or subatomic particles—through their measurable effects rather than direct observation. While black holes are now widely accepted, their existence was originally proposed based on theoretical models and mathematical predictions (by Einstein and Schwarzschild) long before we had direct observational evidence. If faith is simply "the evidence of things not seen," then believing in black holes before we had observable proof fits that definition. Scientists had faith in the validity of their models before evidence confirmed them.
You say that science doesn’t have "faith" in black holes because their existence is based on empirical observations, even though black holes themselves are not seen. But isn’t this still a form of faith—faith in the consistency of scientific models, indirect evidence, and the assumption that unseen forces can be real based on their effects?

A Christian could make the same argument for God. We don’t see Him directly, but we observe the order, complexity, and fine-tuning of nature. Just as black holes are inferred through gravitational effects and radiation, God is inferred through the intelligibility of the universe, the existence of moral laws, and the reliability of human reason itself.

If black holes are accepted not because they are seen, but because their effects are verifiable and reproducible, then why dismiss belief in God, whose presence many argue is also observable through nature, human consciousness, and moral reasoning? Wouldn’t it be inconsistent to accept unseen black holes on indirect evidence while rejecting God on the same basis?

II, Science is built on certain assumptions: that the universe is rational, that laws of physics are constant, and that human reason can accurately interpret reality. These are not provable in themselves; they are philosophical presuppositions that scientists must take on faith. If you reject faith outright, then on what basis do you assume the uniformity of nature?


III, While falsifiability is a key principle in science, not everything of value is falsifiable. Love, justice, consciousness, and even certain interpretations of quantum mechanics resist clear falsification. Does that mean they are meaningless or unworthy of belief? Similarly, religious faith isn't about blind belief but is often grounded in personal experience, historical evidence, and philosophical reasoning.


IV, Science can tell us how things happen, but it doesn't answer why things exist in the first place. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we have laws of physics at all? These are philosophical or theological questions, not scientific ones. Dismissing faith because it isn't "scientific" is like dismissing art because it isn’t mathematical—it’s applying the wrong criteria.


V, False Dichotomy - You present religion and science as if they are opposites, but many of history’s greatest scientists (Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Planck) were deeply religious. They saw faith and reason as complementary, not contradictory. Even today, many scientists believe in God without rejecting empirical science.

ichuka:
Lol
Bro let the Spirit leads and unveil the secret of creation and redemption to you.
I rest .

Yes, Sir.

Biznesworld:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r4OoWAF0fQ

A pastor and his church members gathered to destroy their Bibles.

The pastor and his members felt misled by the Bible and decided to destroy it as a form of protest ignorantly.

The pastor claimed the Bible had deceived them for over 400 years now. He questioned the Bible's authenticity, saying some parts are missing and incorrect, siting some examples.

He made several misleading claims: that some Bible portions are missing, that the Bible's portrayal of God is untrue, and that the Bible contains bad things despite being called "holy."

Additionally, the pastor criticized the Bible's origins, specifically King James' involvement.
He viewed King James as a slave trader and disagreed with his role in translating the Bible.

However, the pastor's arguments and that of his church members, were based on misinformation and a lack of understanding.

This incident serves as a warning: we must be cautious about the churches we attend, the messages we hear and the pastors we follow. Misguided leaders can alter our perceptions of life and God, leading us astray.

Watch the video to hear more reasons he has to say.

They probably haven't read the book cover to cover. Also, if they went for formal education, they'd have encountered "read the comprehension passage" like stories with questions to be answered, and if they answered questions without reading the whole passage, the teacher would know.

If King James is your problem, go for the Original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

AbuTwins:
Ah!

So King James was a slave trader?

No wonder there are many "Slaves obey your master" command in the Bible!

The Bible was edited to contain Jesus's story from birth to few months old, then at 12 years then at 30-33years!

All those years of 1-11years, 13-29years are missing. That's like 90% of Jesus's lifetime is missing from the Bible.

And they claim the Bible is about Jesus!

I can relate to the destruction!

This is a foolish take, why don't you demand the same for the 1-11 years, 13-29 years of Saul, Paul, the old testament prophets, and Jesus' disciples ?

Statements like these just shows us quickly that you haven't really read the bible cover to cover, if you did, you'd know that it's a pattern, right from Genesis.

ichuka:
Bro, let's not be more spiritual than the author of the bible.
Oga,God learnt obedience simple.
The creation He started in genesis was completed or perfected on His Cross of Calvary.
In the concept of salvation there's redemption and the creation of obedience.
Please let not be more holy than Holiness Himself.

I agree he learnt obedience.
I'm in no way disputing that. Reading the original Greek, the learning is not the classroom style learning of acquiring knowledge that one is lacking.
If you think my explaining is being more spiritual than the author, you shouldn't be engaging in religious talks because it is a serious matter.

Nachmonides:
That's a very interesting question, if we all read the Bible cover to cover before really asking questions, I opine that this type of question would not surface at all.


Alright.
We read scriptures contextually, the writer of Hebrews saying Jesus learned Obedience is not something new, especially since Jesus is referred to as the Last Adam.

Similar to Hebrews 5:8 is Romans 5:19 (Greek);

ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί.

Transliteration:
hōsper gàr dià tēs parakoēs toû henòs anthrṓpou hamartōloì katestáthēsan hoi polloí, hoútōs kaì dià tēs hypakoēs toû henòs díkaiōi katastathḗsontai hoi polloí.

"For as by the one man's [b]disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous[/b]".

Adam - Disobeyed
Jesus - Obeyed

It doesn't tell us of an acquisition of knowledge, a learning in the modern sense that we understand it. It simply means one disobeyed what was said or instructed or commanded, the other obeyed what was said or instructed or commanded.




If that's not enough, let's analyze the very Hebrews 5:8 (Greek);
καίπερ ὢν Υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ' ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν

Transliteration:
kaíper ōn Hyiós, émathen aph’ hōn épathen tḕn hypakoḗn

"Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered."

The phrase "He learned obedience" in Hebrews 5:8 does not imply learning in the traditional sense, as if Jesus gained new intellectual knowledge. Instead, it refers to experiential learning—a deeper, lived-out understanding through real-life experience.

Greek Word for "Learned" – ἔμαθεν (emanthen)

The Greek word "emanthen" (ἔμαθεν) comes from manthanō, which means to learn, to come to know, or to experience. While it can mean acquiring new knowledge, in this context, it refers to experiencing something firsthand rather than simply learning intellectually.





On the other hand, the greek word for the traditional learning, teacher-student, classroom-like learning, modern learning is;
μανθάνω (manthanō - μανθάνω). - The Greek word for "learning" in the sense of acquiring knowledge that was lacking.

Definition & Usage of μανθάνω (manthanō)

It means to learn, understand, gain knowledge through study, instruction, or experience.

It can refer to academic learning, discipleship, or acquiring skills.

This is the root word for μαθητής (mathētēs, "disciple", which means a learner, student, or follower (hence, "disciple" in the New Testament).


Examples in the New Testament

1. Matthew 11:29 –
"μάθετε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ" (mathete ap' emou) → "Learn from me"

Here, Jesus invites people to learn from Him, indicating acquiring knowledge and wisdom.



2. Acts 23:27 –
"μαθὼν ὅτι Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν" (mathōn hoti Rhōmaios estin) → "Having learned that he was a Roman"

This refers to acquiring factual knowledge.



Difference Between μανθάνω (manthanō) & ἔμαθεν (émathen, "learned" in Hebrews 5:

μανθάνω (manthanō) = Learning knowledge or skills through study or teaching.

ἔμαθεν (émathen, from manthanō in aorist tense) = Learning through experience, often by going through something difficult (as in Hebrews 5:8 ).

Does This Mean a Translation Issue?

Not exactly. The translation is correct, but the misunderstanding often comes from reading it with a modern, classroom-style learning perspective. The biblical meaning is about experiencing obedience, not just acquiring facts.

Example: Learning by Experience

A soldier does not "learn bravery" by reading about it but by actually facing battles. Likewise, Jesus, as God, always knew obedience in theory, but as a human, He experienced it through suffering.

I didn't mean to put emoticons wherever you may find them here in my comment. NL's text formatting is still a pain in the ass.

ichuka:
Ok
Why would Jesus who is God and the creator of Heavens and earth learn obedience?
Why would God learn something?

That's a very interesting question, if we all read the Bible cover to cover before really asking questions, I opine that this type of question would not surface at all.


Alright.
We read scriptures contextually, the writer of Hebrews saying Jesus learned Obedience is not something new, especially since Jesus is referred to as the Last Adam.

Similar to Hebrews 5:8 is Romans 5:19 (Greek);

ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί.

Transliteration:
hōsper gàr dià tēs parakoēs toû henòs anthrṓpou hamartōloì katestáthēsan hoi polloí, hoútōs kaì dià tēs hypakoēs toû henòs díkaiōi katastathḗsontai hoi polloí.

"For as by the one man's [b]disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous[/b]".

Adam - Disobeyed
Jesus - Obeyed

It doesn't tell us of an acquisition of knowledge, a learning in the modern sense that we understand it. It simply means one disobeyed what was said or instructed or commanded, the other obeyed what was said or instructed or commanded.




If that's not enough, let's analyze the very Hebrews 5:8 (Greek);
καίπερ ὢν Υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ' ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν

Transliteration:
kaíper ōn Hyiós, émathen aph’ hōn épathen tḕn hypakoḗn

"Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered."

The phrase "He learned obedience" in Hebrews 5:8 does not imply learning in the traditional sense, as if Jesus gained new intellectual knowledge. Instead, it refers to experiential learning—a deeper, lived-out understanding through real-life experience.

Greek Word for "Learned" – ἔμαθεν (emanthen)

The Greek word "emanthen" (ἔμαθεν) comes from manthanō, which means to learn, to come to know, or to experience. While it can mean acquiring new knowledge, in this context, it refers to experiencing something firsthand rather than simply learning intellectually.





On the other hand, the greek word for the traditional learning, teacher-student, classroom-like learning, modern learning is;
μανθάνω (manthanō - μανθάνω). - The Greek word for "learning" in the sense of acquiring knowledge that was lacking.

Definition & Usage of μανθάνω (manthanō)

It means to learn, understand, gain knowledge through study, instruction, or experience.

It can refer to academic learning, discipleship, or acquiring skills.

This is the root word for μαθητής (mathētēs, "disciple" ), which means a learner, student, or follower (hence, "disciple" in the New Testament).


Examples in the New Testament

1. Matthew 11:29 –
"μάθετε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ" (mathete ap' emou) → "Learn from me"

Here, Jesus invites people to learn from Him, indicating acquiring knowledge and wisdom.



2. Acts 23:27 –
"μαθὼν ὅτι Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν" (mathōn hoti Rhōmaios estin) → "Having learned that he was a Roman"

This refers to acquiring factual knowledge.



Difference Between μανθάνω (manthanō) & ἔμαθεν (émathen, "learned" in Hebrews 5:

μανθάνω (manthanō) = Learning knowledge or skills through study or teaching.

ἔμαθεν (émathen, from manthanō in aorist tense) = Learning through experience, often by going through something difficult (as in Hebrews 5:8 ).

Does This Mean a Translation Issue?

Not exactly. The translation is correct, but the misunderstanding often comes from reading it with a modern, classroom-style learning perspective. The biblical meaning is about experiencing obedience, not just acquiring facts.

Example: Learning by Experience

A soldier does not "learn bravery" by reading about it but by actually facing battles. Likewise, Jesus, as God, always knew obedience in theory, but as a human, He experienced it through suffering.

ichuka:
Hi bro, please can you explain Hebrew5:8 for us,in view of the topic.
Thanks

You'd have to formulate your question properly so I don't assume. The topic is about God's omniscience.

Kobojunkie:
Posting religious gobbledegook aka meaningless bullsheet delivers people from doubts? Are you OK at all?

Go and rest, you're not wise.

FreeSpirited:
After I studied the Quran, I can't believe an intellectually honest ,morally meticulous, just and truly smart person will practice Islam. Even Christianity, I rejected it at some point just because of some practices and Laws in old testament which GAVE ME a very hard time of doubt and skeptism for more than 15 years of my life even though I was born into a very religious home....if not that I encounterd Christ by himself, and Christ teaching proved to be the most true, sublime, liberating, peaceful and love spreading teaching u can ever find in any scriptures, I may never HAVE become a true Christian again.
.
Now imagine the confusion, contradiction, superstitions, capital punishment, and terroristic sentiments promoted by Quran and Mohammed , how can a normal honest person overlook those ethical, and problematic areas of Islamic teachings or scripture and still become a Muslim? The more I studied the Quran, the more I get confused and surprised that people will ascribe Quran as being dropped from heaven to earth for humanity...it's crazy. Spiritual Deception and manipulation can never be more glaring.

My Final opinion about Islam is that it a grand spiritual deception that was was founded and masterminded by a contact with a powerful satanic angel....to deceive humanity about the truth of Jehovah the only true God and Christ the only way to the true God.
I came to this conclusion because almost all major figures found in The Bible is also seen in the Quran..same figure, but different names (language translation) but with more crazy and dramatic stories about them...Quran is a copycat of the Bible events and story interlaced with lies to deceive many away from Christ.

Oh awesome, you've read the Qur'an? — that's absolutely cool.

Islam is a ☪️ancer. Without the lies, Islam dies.

Kobojunkie:
I am still allergic to Religious gobbledegook, so stop inundating me with your meaningless drivels!

If you don't read it's fine. In fact, it's absolutely alright.

I just had to comment because people who read this thread may see your comment and have doubts as well, so I had to clarify for them.

ichuka:
Everything being very good doesn't mean perfection.the creation in genesis was a prototype to the real deal, which is Christ.
Prototype might be good or even very good,that doesn't make it the reality on ground. Perfection is from Christ(the second Adam)not Adam in prototype in genesis(first Adam)

I wouldn't say a prototype, a prototype is indeed the original model from which other versions are derived, but not necessarily the final perfected version. It serves as the basis or foundation for the final product, often used to test, refine, and improve upon.


If we say Adam was the prototype based on this, we are saying that God used Adam to test, refine, and improve upon his mistakes or shortcomings, whereas scriptures tell us Christ had been the plan of God even before the foundations of the world, before he even created Adam. So therefore Christ was first in the mind of God, not Adam.

However, we also cannot use the word prototype for Jesus, even though he is the first born, the model, the pattern for all mankind, because prototype suggests it's not the final perfected version and there'd be a refining, testing, improving.

I'd say we should use what scriptures use:
The Greek word "πρωτότοκος" (prototokos) is generally translated as "firstborn," but its meaning is more nuanced than just chronological order. It primarily conveys preeminence, supremacy, or superiority, rather than just being a prototype in the modern sense of an initial model.

Meaning of "πρωτότοκος" (Prototokos)

1. Firstborn in Rank and Preeminence
In biblical context, "πρωτότοκος" does not necessarily refer to the first to be born in a literal, chronological sense. Instead, it emphasizes rank and superiority. In the ancient world, the firstborn was granted authority over the family or inheritance, symbolizing supremacy and leadership.

Colossians 1:15-18 uses "πρωτότοκος" to describe Christ as the firstborn of all creation. This indicates His supremacy over all creation, not merely that He was the first created being. Christ is the preeminent one, having authority over all things.

Kobojunkie:
In the period between Genesis 1vs 31 and Genesis 6 vs 6, we also learn that YHWH, who later introduces Himself as God of Israel, cursed all that He created after man fell. Can that which is cursed remain good?

I thought you were seriously smart, honestly. I see people who critique scriptures as smart people, but you have disappointed that idea, now I will pay much attention and critique the critic. You absolutely haven't read the bible well.
I should probably not respond to you but for the sake of people who will view this thread.

Concerning the cursing of the ground.
It can be understood as God telling Adam a natural consequence of Adam's actions—much like how breaking a law leads to punishment, not because the law enforcer directly harms you, but because that’s the outcome of your actions.

The Biblical Context

In Genesis 3:17, God says:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life."

The phrase "because of you" suggests that the ground was not cursed by an arbitrary divine act but as a result of Adam’s disobedience.

It aligns with a recurring biblical theme: sin brings consequences, sometimes indirectly.



Another case would be that of Pharaoh:
Did God Directly Harden Pharaoh’s Heart?

At first glance, Exodus 9:12 says:

> "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses."



This makes it sound like God forced Pharaoh to be stubborn. But if we look deeper, we see a pattern:

1. Pharaoh hardened his own heart first

Exodus 8:15 – “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them.”

Exodus 8:32 – “But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go.”

Exodus 9:34 – “But when Pharaoh saw that the rain, hail, and thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart. ”
Here it says he sinned yet again


2. Later, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart further

Exodus 9:12 – “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.”

Exodus 10:20, 10:27, 11:10 – Repeats that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.




What This Means

Pharaoh made his own choice first. He was already rejecting God.

God simply reinforced what Pharaoh had already decided.

This aligns with the principle of consequences. Just like Adam faced the natural results of his sin, Pharaoh was given over to his own stubbornness.


The Biblical Pattern

This idea shows up elsewhere in Scripture:

Romans 1:24-26 – “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.”

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 – “God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false.”

Actually use your brain when reading scriptures, ask questions, what's the context, is this a figure of speech, if it is, what type, is this some form of ancient tradition, is it influenced by the translators culture and traditions, language?

It's just like a parent who tells his child not to do evil and the child goes on to do it repeatedly, and the parent says "Okay, have your way". The child will find out the consequences of the evil actions.

Nachmonides:
While the Constitution says Nigeria is secular, legal loopholes, political will, and religious influence have allowed Sharia law to operate in a way that sometimes extends beyond just Muslims.

Nigeria operates a mixed legal system:

Common law (from British colonial rule).

Customary law (traditional practices).

Sharia law (in 12 northern states for Muslims).


The 1999 Constitution recognizes "Customary and Islamic Law" courts, allowing states to apply Sharia to those who consent.

Don't worry if you don't consent to it they can't force you. If they do, then we go back to the era of the crusades.

If Sharia were forcefully imposed on non-Muslims, it would directly violate Section 38 (freedom of religion) and Section 10 (secularism). That would be a serious constitutional crisis, and even physical crisis.

HISSCRIBE1995:
Then how come the North applies Sharia to its people and Sharia might even pass a judgement that could affect a non Muslim to a certain degree ?

While the Constitution says Nigeria is secular, legal loopholes, political will, and religious influence have allowed Sharia law to operate in a way that sometimes extends beyond just Muslims.

Nigeria operates a mixed legal system:

Common law (from British colonial rule).

Customary law (traditional practices).

Sharia law (in 12 northern states for Muslims).


The 1999 Constitution recognizes "Customary and Islamic Law" courts, allowing states to apply Sharia to those who consent.

Don't worry if you don't consent to it they can't force you. If they do, then we go back to the era of the crusades.

Nachmonides:
To your first question, I don't think there's anything like separation of church and state in Nigeria because they were never together.

To your other questions, the reason is due to Section 38(1), muslims would argue that they are "manifesting" or "propagating" their religion, and they might win in the court of law.

Of course, in the court of law, it's not about what is right or wrong in the moral sense, there's only what the constitution says and your lawyer's ability to argue (in most cases it's actually an exploit) the matter. it’s about interpretation and argument based on the constitution and existing legal precedents.

Muslims in northern Nigeria could argue that implementing Sharia is a manifestation of their religion, protected under Section 38(1). However, others might counter that Section 10 prohibits any state religion, making government-backed Sharia courts unconstitutional.

In court, the strongest argument wins, often exploiting loopholes or ambiguities in the law. That’s why good lawyers don’t just read the law—they strategize around it.

Here is your answer OP

HISSCRIBE1995:
Recently there have been heated discussions about having Sharia in South Western Nigeria .
And i felt the silence or responses of the government or its officials are ironic .

Is there anything like separation of church and state in Nigeria ?
If yes why does Nigeria has Sharia courts ?

Why is kano government providing aids to those who convert from Christianity to Islam ?

Why is the supreme council of Islam trying to establish Sharia legal system in southern Nigeria without the consent of the established government ?

How did northern Nigeria end up having Sharia if Nigeria is a secular state ?

To your first question, I don't think there's anything like separation of church and state in Nigeria because they were never together.

To your other questions, the reason is due to Section 38(1), muslims would argue that they are "manifesting" or "propagating" their religion, and they might win in the court of law.

Of course, in the court of law, it's not about what is right or wrong in the moral sense, there's only what the constitution says and your lawyer's ability to argue (in most cases it's actually an exploit) the matter. it’s about interpretation and argument based on the constitution and existing legal precedents.

Muslims in northern Nigeria could argue that implementing Sharia is a manifestation of their religion, protected under Section 38(1). However, others might counter that Section 10 prohibits any state religion, making government-backed Sharia courts unconstitutional.

In court, the strongest argument wins, often exploiting loopholes or ambiguities in the law. That’s why good lawyers don’t just read the law—they strategize around it.

HISSCRIBE1995:
Recently there have been heated discussions about having Sharia in South Western Nigeria .
And i felt the silence or responses of the government or its officials are ironic .

Is there anything like separation of church and state in Nigeria ?
If yes why does Nigeria has Sharia courts ?

Why is kano government providing aids to those who convert from Christianity to Islam ?

Why is the supreme council of Islam trying to establish Sharia legal system in southern Nigeria without the consent of the established government ?

How did northern Nigeria end up having Sharia if Nigeria is a secular state ?

Nigeria is officially a secular state according to its 1999 Constitution, meaning the government is not supposed to favor or adopt any religion. However, in practice, religion plays a significant role in governance and society.

Constitutional Provisions:

1. Section 10 of the Nigerian Constitution states:
“The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.”
This explicitly confirms that Nigeria is a secular state.


2. Section 38(1) guarantees freedom of religion:
“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance.”



Reality vs. Constitution:

Despite the constitutional secularism, Sharia law operates in 12 northern states, mainly for Muslims.

Government officials often openly express religious affiliations.

Public funds are sometimes used for religious activities like pilgrimages.


So, while Nigeria is legally a secular state, religious influences are deeply embedded in its political and social structure.

Lucifyre:
Man you just info dumped on me, that's a lot 😅. It's all good though, I'd just try nitpick through. First before making assertions about what faith can be, you need to define what exactly it is and going by the biblical definition alone already contradicts almost all your assertions. Heb 11:1 which you quoted basically contradicts that "Now faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see". That alone doesn't even support your assertions in the first place.

Now if we take the literal definition(Britannica), it defines faith as "something that is believed without being questioned or doubted ". Another definition from same source states "to accept (something) as true without proof or evidence that it is true". The definitions alone floor your assertions, even the bible. So where do you get your assertions from. You're practically imposing what you want it to be to fit your assertions, like how you guys renegotiate your texts.

The very definitions of faith shows its not compatible with logic. Now i'm not saying faith is illogical but it is a flawed process, it's basically the least form of acceptance and there's a reason it's the least and that's cause it simply can't be used to establish truth whatsoever. It is non-logical. Also there's a reason faith is mostly only used in religious contexts to establish something is true and nowhere else. Logic on the other hand is applied virtually everywhere even computers, because its consistent and non-contradictory which faith is obviously not.

As for the evidence you talk about, anecdotal subjective evidence is not evidence. I'm not sure if you've read up any of the evidence or even the one you cited cause if you study it, it basically contradicts majority of what's in the bible and that's asides from the bible contradicting itself which is impossible with logic. i find it funny when Josephus and Tacitus are quoted by christains cause it doesn't even tell us anything about Jesus' life save for the fact that he likely existed and was killed for been a nuisance to the romans, nothing about his resurrection or miracles or details of his life.

And the refs are very short on the side mentions when discussing something else, so he wasn't even the focus in those sources, a short line or two in the docs discussing something else. Most other evidences(be it historical, archeological or textual) majorly contradicts what's in the bible just as it contradicts itself like i earlier stated. So it's virtually incompatible for faith and logic to coexist. Faith doesn't lead to a creator, it suggests creators of which your particular arbitrarily selected faith settles you on a creator/creators dependendent on if your faith is polytheistic or monotheistic.

Way too kafakaesque to be logical, so it can't be used as a pathway to truth. Truth is objective, demonstrable, falsifiable and replicable which doesn't work with faith at all, no matter the particular faith belief you settle on out of the numerous ones existing and those that have existed. Also you do realise your bible is the claim and not the evidence, so citing the claim as evidence is funny, circular and fallacious.

On faith again.
The original Greek text of Hebrews 11:1 is:

"Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων."

Word-by-Word Breakdown:

1. πίστις (pistis) → Faith, trust, belief, conviction


2. ἐλπιζομένων (elpizomenōn) → Things hoped for, expected


3. ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) → Substance, foundation, assurance, confidence


4. πραγμάτων (pragmatōn) → Matters, things, realities


5. ἔλεγχος (elegchos) → Evidence, proof, conviction


6. οὐ βλεπομένων (ou blepomenōn) → Not seen, unseen



Literal Translation:

"Now faith is the substance (or assurance) of things hoped for, the evidence (or conviction) of things not seen."


If you're to be honest or take yourself to be a man of reason, you can't read that and say it is arbitrary belief without reason.


This definition of faith does not mean blind belief without reason but rather a deep trust in something not yet visible. It suggests that faith is an active confidence, not mere wishful thinking.

We must ask, why should one have confidence in something? — that means there's a past action, a premise that demands it. Then we should ask after, what is the past action and how can we prove it is true, using the methods available to us, scientifically.

I'll leave this here:
A scientist has faith in a black hole’s existence based on gravitational effects, even if they can’t see it directly.

A Christian has faith in God based on historical accounts, changed lives, and logical reasoning, even without physically seeing Him.

Do tell me if I missed any point in your argument, Lucifyre.

Nachmonides.

Another info dumping, haha.
Please info dump me too. I will read all that you have to say.

Lucifyre:
Man you just info dumped on me, that's a lot 😅. It's all good though, I'd just try nitpick through. First before making assertions about what faith can be, you need to define what exactly it is and going by the biblical definition alone already contradicts almost all your assertions. Heb 11:1 which you quoted basically contradicts that "Now faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see". That alone doesn't even support your assertions in the first place.

Now if we take the literal definition(Britannica), it defines faith as "something that is believed without being questioned or doubted ". Another definition from same source states "to accept (something) as true without proof or evidence that it is true". The definitions alone floor your assertions, even the bible. So where do you get your assertions from. You're practically imposing what you want it to be to fit your assertions, like how you guys renegotiate your texts.

The very definitions of faith shows its not compatible with logic. Now i'm not saying faith is illogical but it is a flawed process, it's basically the least form of acceptance and there's a reason it's the least and that's cause it simply can't be used to establish truth whatsoever. It is non-logical. Also there's a reason faith is mostly only used in religious contexts to establish something is true and nowhere else. Logic on the other hand is applied virtually everywhere even computers, because its consistent and non-contradictory which faith is obviously not.

As for the evidence you talk about, anecdotal subjective evidence is not evidence. I'm not sure if you've read up any of the evidence or even the one you cited cause if you study it, it basically contradicts majority of what's in the bible and that's asides from the bible contradicting itself which is impossible with logic. i find it funny when Josephus and Tacitus are quoted by christains cause it doesn't even tell us anything about Jesus' life save for the fact that he likely existed and was killed for been a nuisance to the romans, nothing about his resurrection or miracles or details of his life.

And the refs are very short on the side mentions when discussing something else, so he wasn't even the focus in those sources, a short line or two in the docs discussing something else. Most other evidences(be it historical, archeological or textual) majorly contradicts what's in the bible just as it contradicts itself like i earlier stated. So it's virtually incompatible for faith and logic to coexist. Faith doesn't lead to a creator, it suggests creators of which your particular arbitrarily selected faith settles you on a creator/creators dependendent on if your faith is polytheistic or monotheistic.

Way too kafakaesque to be logical, so it can't be used as a pathway to truth. Truth is objective, demonstrable, falsifiable and replicable which doesn't work with faith at all, no matter the particular faith belief you settle on out of the numerous ones existing and those that have existed. Also you do realise your bible is the claim and not the evidence, so citing the claim as evidence is funny, circular and fallacious.

Ah, I love your responses, thank you.

+ Faith vs. Logic: Can Faith Be Rational?

Your Claim:

Faith, by definition, is belief without proof, which contradicts logic. Faith cannot establish truth because truth is objective, demonstrable, falsifiable, and replicable.

Answer:

Faith is not necessarily opposed to logic—it depends on how one defines it. There’s a difference between:

Blind faith – belief without reason or evidence.

Reasoned faith – trust based on indirect evidence, inference, or probability.


For example:

We "have faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, though we haven’t yet observed tomorrow.

Scientists “trust” foundational principles (axioms) in math or physics that aren’t empirically proven but are necessary for logical systems to work.

Historians rely on testimonies and documents from the past, trusting sources with reasonable credibility.


Christian philosophers argue that faith in God is not blind but based on logical inference from cosmology (Kalam argument), morality, fine-tuning of the universe, and personal experience. While these may not meet scientific falsifiability standards, neither do many philosophical or historical conclusions, yet they are still considered rational.

Do you disagree?


+ Historical Evidence; Does Jesus’ Mention in Secular Sources Matter?

Your Claim:

Josephus and Tacitus barely mention Jesus, and they don’t affirm miracles or resurrection, so they don’t support Christianity’s supernatural claims.

Answer:

Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and other sources collectively confirm:

Jesus was a real historical figure.

He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

He had followers who strongly believed in his resurrection.


While these sources don’t prove supernatural claims, they lend credibility to the idea that early Christians genuinely believed in them. The argument follows: if Jesus’ disciples were willing to die for their claims (rather than admit they lied), that at least makes their conviction historically significant.

Additionally, skeptics sometimes say the Gospels are unreliable because they contain miraculous claims. But if we use that logic, should we dismiss all ancient sources that contain supernatural elements, even when they report historical events? Historians analyze all sources critically rather than rejecting them outright.
For example:
I, Alexander the Great – Ancient sources (Arrian, Plutarch) claim he was the son of Zeus and born after his mother was visited by a serpent. Despite this, historians accept his conquests as historical.


II, Julius Caesar – Suetonius and Plutarch mention omens predicting his assassination, like his wife’s dream and a soothsayer’s warning. Historians still accept his life and death as factual.


III, Emperor Vespasian – Tacitus and Suetonius report that he performed miracles, like healing a blind man. His reign as emperor is still historically accepted.


IV, Hannibal’s Alps Crossing – Polybius and Livy describe divine omens before his campaign. Historians accept the event while setting aside the supernatural claims.

Do you disagree?


+ Faith in Non-Religious Contexts

Your Claim:

Faith is mostly used in religious contexts. Logic, however, is universally applicable and used in all fields.

Answer:

Faith is not exclusive to religion. It exists in various forms:

Science: Many accept the Big Bang or string theory without fully understanding the math and physics behind them. This is a form of trust in scientific consensus.

History: People believe historical accounts (like Alexander the Great’s conquests) without demanding firsthand proof.

Everyday life: Trusting a bridge won’t collapse when you cross it is a form of reasonable faith in engineering and physics.


The key difference is that non-religious faith is typically based on prior evidence and open to testing, whereas religious faith often isn't. However, some argue that religious faith is also based on perceived experiences, philosophical reasoning, and historical claims.

Do you disagree?

+ Biblical Contradictions
Your Claim:

The Bible contradicts itself, making it logically inconsistent.

Answer:
Have you read the bible cover to cover, or your conclusion on the "contradictions" stem from reading one or two or a few pages here and there?

Many so-called contradictions result from:

1. Context differences: Different authors wrote with different perspectives, but this doesn't necessarily mean contradiction.


2. Translation issues: Some discrepancies arise from language differences between Hebrew, Greek, and English.


3. Scribal variations: Minor numerical differences (e.g., different counts of people in genealogies) are common in ancient texts and don’t affect the Bible’s core message.



For example:

Resurrection accounts: The Gospels describe the resurrection from different viewpoints, but the core claim (Jesus rising) remains consistent. Courts accept varying testimonies as long as the core facts align.

Genealogy of Jesus: Matthew and Luke’s genealogies differ because Matthew traces legal lineage through Joseph, while Luke likely traces biological lineage through Mary.


Critics argue these are contradictions, but theologians say they are harmonizations of different perspectives, not logical inconsistencies.

Do you disagree?

Lucifyre:
...

Alright.

Faith, in the biblical sense, is not believing without evidence but rather trusting based on sufficient evidence as I've said. The Scriptures constantly appeal to reason:

Isaiah 1:18—"Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord."

1 Peter 3:15—"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you."

As I've said.

Christianity presents logical reasons to believe:

Cosmological Argument – The universe had a beginning; therefore, it must have a cause. Who or what is the cause of this?—Scriptures tell us it is a being, God.

Teleological Argument – The fine-tuning of the universe points to an intelligent Designer. — Scriptures tell us this intelligent designer is God.

Moral Argument – Objective moral values require a transcendent moral lawgiver. Scriptures tell us this moral lawgiver is God.

Are you well versed in these I've mentioned?

Lucifyre:
How is faith logical or not blind following as you put it?

Before we go into the details, I'll say this and see what you have to say about it.

Alright.
Faith is logical because it is based on reason, evidence, and trust—not on blind adherence to something without basis. Here’s why:

I, Faith is Built on Evidence

Faith in Christ is not believing despite evidence but because of it. Consider:

Historical Evidence: The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are well-documented historical events. Even non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus) confirm aspects of His life.

Philosophical Evidence: The existence of the universe, morality, and human reason points to a rational Creator (e.g., the Cosmological and Moral Arguments).

Experiential Evidence: Millions testify to transformation through faith, aligning with biblical promises (2 Corinthians 5:17).


II, Faith is Not a Blind Leap, but a Reasoned Trust

Consider how we exercise faith in daily life:

You sit on a chair, trusting it will hold you—not blindly, but because you’ve seen chairs function before.

You board a plane, trusting the pilot, based on reasoning that pilots are trained professionals.


Similarly, biblical faith is trust in God based on who He is and what He has done—not blind belief, there's a knowledge base, a foundation.

III, Biblical Faith is Rooted in Reasoning

Isaiah 1:18 – "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord."

Acts 17:2 – Paul "reasoned" with the Jews from the Scriptures.

1 Peter 3:15 – Christians must be ready to give "a reason for the hope that is in you."


God invites inquiry and rational thinking. Faith involves reasoning based on the available evidence, then trusting what is yet unseen (Hebrews 11:1).

IV, Faith Complements, Not Contradicts, Logic

Faith and logic work together like two sides of a coin:

Logic identifies the truth → Faith acts upon it.

Logic examines the evidence → Faith embraces its implications.

Logic leads to God → Faith is trusting Him beyond what we fully grasp.

Faith is logical because it is based on reasoning, evidence, and trust—just like how we operate in other areas of life. It’s not "blind," but a confident trust in the most reasonable explanation of life, morality, and existence.

Interesting conversation here.

After a careful study of the Scriptures, one comes to the conclusion that faith in Christ is absolutely logical.

However, not many can articulate how faith is logical.
As an apologist, this is a crucial defense when engaging intellectuals who highly value reason and evidence.

After all, if God is, and is truly God, he gave us the ability to reason and be logical, therefore, he himself is a Mathematician of a very high order, as Paul Dirac would say.

Faith is not blindly following, it has a very heavy logical base as to why you should follow.
The scriptures say that God is not the author of confusion, and I agree.

Source: Trust me bro.

Auki:
Many of the concept in Christianity like Triune God, Trinity, XMAS and Easter have Pagan underpinning.

Are you a Christian?