₦airaland Forum

Too Hot 2 Handle. Tsk. Figures. I wonder why we Nigerian viewers crave the tepid broth of televised romance when we could just feast upon the jagged, strategic brilliance of shows like Survivor, The Challenge or The Traitors. Hell, even Bad Girls Club has more dramatic firecracker moments. Is it a national allergy to grit and strategy? Surely, people who get laid regularly don't fawn endlessly like this over mindless TV romance. It really sucks. We bypass the gritty survivalism of serious shows for the perfumed nonsense of matchmaking shows. Quite the tragic trade-off, if I do say so myself.

OLAADEGBU:
Are you an atheist?

Are you a detective? Seems not.

OLAADEGBU:
It’s all about logic as the topic of this thread portrays. The atheist logic and God’s logic. Below is how I use logic to decode John 1:1.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The simple logic of this verse can be summed up as thus:

THE WORD = GOD

In John 1:14 it states:

"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

From these verses we can deduce the following:

JESUS = THE WORD

Simple logic declares that

if A=B and

B=C  then

A=C.

Therefore, since

JESUS = THE WORD and

THE WORD = GOD, then

JESUS = GOD

QED.

That's cute. Three problems here though, just for starters

1) "The Word" is a translation of the Greek Logos - a philosophical concept Hellenistic thinkers used centuries before Jesus was born. John borrowed it from Stoic cosmology. So your QED is actually crediting Zeno of Citium. Congratulations, you've accidentally proven Greek philosophy, not Christianity.

2) Your transitive property requires clean substitution, but instead, John 1:1 gives us a God who is simultaneously distinct from the Word ["with God"] and identical to it ["was God"]. That's not A=B. That's A≠B AND A=B simultaneously, which in formal logic, is a contradiction, not a proof. Mathematics would reject this instantly.

3) "A is like B" does not mean "A equals B." When John calls Jesus the Word of God, he may be expressing function or representation, not ontological identity. A president's spokesperson isn't the president. The White House press secretary speaks for POTUS, but it doesn't make them POTUS. See how that analogy collapses?

What say ye?

Can't believe I just came across it. This movie's gonna kick ass!