Roycemadeit's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Roycemadeit's Profile › Roycemadeit's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 38 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Each Jehovah Witness Now Decides To Accept Or Donate Main Blood Components by Roycemadeit(m): 8:13pm On Oct 29 |
People keep claiming that the world would be a better place if everyone were Jehovah’s Witnesses. But have they considered the consequences if everyone strictly followed the organisation’s blood doctrine? For decades, members were taught to refuse blood transfusions based on its interpretation of scripture, potentially costing lives. Now, the organisation allows individual conscience to determine whether members accept the four major blood components. What changed? Did God change his mind, or did human beings reconsider their interpretation of his supposed instructions? This is precisely why I question the claim that any denomination has discovered the one true way to worship God. If an organisation can present an interpretation as God's will for decades and later revise it, its sincerity does not make its teachings infallible. Before declaring that the world would be better if everyone followed your religion, you must first confront the possibility your teachings, however sincerely defended, are due to human interpretation and not some supernatural deity dictating the tune. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Culture, Conquest And The Claim Of Universality by Roycemadeit(op): 8:04pm On Oct 29 |
Dtruthspeaker:. . Where has God exercised any acts of ownership over the world? Look at this funny fellow trying to establish a deity of hide and seek as an owner 😂 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Culture, Conquest And The Claim Of Universality by Roycemadeit(op): 10:00am On Oct 28 |
StillDtruth:. . . Your analogy establishes, at most, that control can be evidence of ownership. It does not establish that every controller is an owner, much less that the biblical deity created the universe and therefore possesses legitimate authority over it. A tenant can control a house without owning it, and a person can challenge a king's authority without conceding that the king is legitimate. My criticism of biblical accounts of divine action does not amount to an admission of divine ownership. It challenges the moral legitimacy of that claimed authority. Before using God's supposed control as evidence of ownership, you must establish that the control is real, that it originates from the being you identify as God, and that control entails rightful ownership. Your analogy assumes the conclusion it is supposed to establish. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Culture, Conquest And The Claim Of Universality by Roycemadeit(op): 6:43pm On Oct 27 |
Dtruthspeaker:. .You compare God to a house owner without establishing that he owns the house in the first place. You're assuming what you're supposed to prove. 😂 You defend a deity whose existence and authority you accept through a religious tradition, yet you justify violence, killing, and the seizure of other people's possessions when such acts are claimed to be divinely authorised. My argument is for the advancement of the human experience, for a more reasonable and humane world. Yet you're so consumed by defending the Hebrew deity that you fail to see the human suffering your reasoning excuses. You claim to defend humanity's Creator while defending the destruction of the very humanity he supposedly created. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Inheritance Of Bias by Roycemadeit(op): 6:24pm On Oct 27 |
Dtruthspeaker:. . .It's ridiculous how you think. You don't even know how God came to be or how Christianity came to be, yet you're here calling my work “thrash production” and lecturing me about bias. You accuse me of stubbornness while displaying the very intellectual stubbornness you're pretending to condemn. Nobody tests anything in what I wrote. You simply lack the comprehension to understand anything, and your response makes that painfully obvious. I can only imagine how intellectually bankrupt someone must be to read an entire piece, understand so little of it, and still have the audacity to lecture the author. Your comment is an embarrassment, and frankly, your ignorance would be less irritating if it weren't accompanied by so much arrogance. It's repulsive. |
| Christianity Etc › The Inheritance Of Bias by Roycemadeit(op): 3:17pm On Oct 25*. Modified: 9:20pm On Oct 25 |
. . Man is an embodiment of bias. We define ourselves through our experiences, circumstances, and influences. We inherit beliefs before we understand them, identities before we choose them, and loyalties before we learn to question them. This bias begins with the individual, extends into the family, grows through clans and tribes, and eventually finds expression in nations. Every group wants to believe it is better than another. We celebrate our own achievements, ridicule the failures of outsiders, and excuse the misconduct of our own people. “Humanity praises equality yet secretly seeks superiority.” But nobody consciously chooses the circumstances of their birth. We simply arrive in a family, a tribe, a country, and often a religion. Why, then, do we defend these inherited identities as though their superiority were an established fact? The accident of birth does not determine the worth of a person. We all desire security, good health, peace, and the opportunity to live meaningful lives. Yet we manufacture differences to justify exclusion, exploitation, and sometimes violence against people whose only offence is belonging elsewhere. Religion can become another instrument of division. How does a supposedly universal Creator become the champion of one group against the rest of humanity? Imagine a father with ten children. He gives nine of them ice cream but leaves out the tenth, the child he supposedly loves so much. Instead of buying ice cream for the tenth child, he secretly tells him to kill his nine siblings and take their ice cream. The nine children know nothing about this supposed instruction. All they hear is their brother threatening to kill them unless they surrender their ice cream, claiming their father authorised him to do so. The tenth child kills his siblings, takes their ice cream, and thanks his father for giving him the strength to defeat them. He then tells the story as a heroic victory made possible by his father's favour. But what kind of father deprives one child, commands him to slaughter the others, and then deserves praise for helping him succeed? Does the act become moral simply because the alleged command came from their father, or because the surviving child insists that it did A claim of divine authority does not eliminate the need for moral scrutiny. “The gods of the powerful became familiar, while those of the defeated were forgotten.” Religious ideas have travelled through migration, cultural exchange, political institutions, and conquest. Christianity existed in Africa long before European colonialism, but European imperial power and missionary activity helped transform religious landscapes across much of the continent. History forces us to ask how differently we might believe if the circumstances of conquest had been different. Military power often functions as a new God. A nation's ability to threaten, invade, or retaliate can matter more than the moral arguments of those opposing it. The powerful can impose consequences; the weak may have little capacity to respond. Yet victory proves strength, not righteousness. As my book reminds us: The outcome of battle settles nothing of truth. Perhaps humanity's greatest challenge is to stop confusing what we inherit with what deserves our allegiance. Our tribe is not necessarily superior, our religion is not true merely because we inherited it, and our nation is not righteous simply because it is ours. We did not choose where we began. We can, however, choose whether our inherited identities will remain boundaries around our humanity. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 7:44am On Oct 25 |
MaxInDHouse:. . False religions are not influencing me. It was the Bible itself that raised questions and led me to investigate religion critically. I began to realise that religions share striking similarities and that people often accept the religion of their culture as truth. Don't tell me what gave me the impetus to question your ridiculous beliefs. My starting point is the reality. Anything beyond that requires evidence, not just belief. Belief is not knowledge, and confidence in a claim does not make it true. If you were born 2,000 years ago in a society that had never encountered Christianity, would you independently know this particular God of Israel existed? Or would you most likely inherit the religious beliefs of your people? Geography, culture, conquest and upbringing play enormous roles in determining which deity people believe in. You're asking me to accept a book with a human history of composition, editing, translation and canonisation as the unquestionable word of God. A book containing contradictions, accounts that lack historical confirmation, and passages that raise serious moral questions. Yet you dismiss competing religions as fake while assuming yours is the original. You've merely been taught to believe it is true, and now you're confusing that belief with knowledge. Evolution doesn't need to teach humans morality to expose the weakness in your argument. Calling other religions fake doesn't prove yours genuine. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 6:56pm On Oct 24 |
Dtruthspeaker and Vdestro, I think we're confusing commentary with a question that demands an answer. Dtruthspeaker, I understand your mannequin analogy. You're saying that just as a mannequin cannot determine that its creator must be made of plastic, humans cannot assume that God shares human physical characteristics. Vdestro, your examples of Faraday, Hippocrates and women being called fathers demonstrate that the term can be metaphorical. I'm not unaware of these interpretations. But my commentary was about the combined language and imagery used in Christian theology: God as Father, Jesus as Son, God consistently referred to as He, the Ancient of Days portrayed with white beards in Daniel 7, and humanity supposedly created in God's image. I also highlighted the peculiar arrangement of a divine Father and Son, but no divine mother. You are free to interpret these descriptions as metaphors, accommodations to human understanding or representations of a God beyond biological sex. My observation concerns the language and imagery themselves, and the distinction between what is presented literally and what is subsequently explained symbolically. When you say you've answered me, remember that I was making commentary. You chose to engage with it, and I am commenting on your responses in turn. Explaining your interpretation doesn't automatically make my original observation disappear. You may disagree with my commentary, but please don't confuse offering an interpretation with establishing that the issue I highlighted no longer exists. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 6:40pm On Oct 24 |
I think some of you are responding to what you imagine my argument to be rather than the point I'm making. MaxInDHouse, saying God could have performed a miracle doesn't establish that He did. There's a difference between defending what a text records and inventing explanations to fill its gaps. Otherwise, any difficulty can be dismissed by adding another miracle to the story. Kobojunkie, my point about Ussher was never that the Bible explicitly prints 4004 BC. It was that the date was calculated from its genealogies and chronologies. Dtruthspeaker, saying "who cares?" tells us that you don't consider the questions important. It doesn't tell us whether the questions are valid. You may consider the details about Eden unnecessary, but that is different from explaining the narrative. And on the Ark, animal migration alone doesn't explain the survival, subsequent distribution and diversity of life under a literal global-flood scenario. Likewise, the olive leaf raises a question about how the vegetation fits the flood narrative. Finally, Max, suggesting that atheists question the Bible because they dislike moral rules is speculation about motives, not a response to the arguments. Evolution is a scientific explanation of biological change, not a moral code. That is a separate discussion. if a passage leaves something unexplained, you may propose an interpretation. But please distinguish what the text actually says from what you believe must have happened. I'm asking why some of you treat your own assumptions as explanations while dismissing questions about the very account you're defending. Address the arguments, not the presumed motives of the people raising them. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: God-fearing: A Personal Reflection On Moral Agency by Roycemadeit(op): 7:15am On Oct 24 |
Dtruthspeaker:. . . Dtruthspeaker, this one no follow. 😂 You said an immoral parent cannot raise a moral child, then you brought up Abraham, David, Solomon and Moses to show that children can turn out differently from their parents or learn from people who aren't their biological parents. You have already contradicted your own argument. A child can learn good behaviour from people, observe the consequences of bad behaviour, or simply reject what a parent teaches. Children are not photocopies of their parents o. And this claim that a child who differs from their parents must have chosen to be different is another assumption. Children don't choose their parents, upbringing or every circumstance that shapes them. People develop through a combination of influences and personal choices. Your examples actually support my point. Try to comprehend first |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 7:10am On Oct 24 |
Kobojunkie:. . Bishop James Ussher calculated 4004 BC by adding up the biblical genealogies and chronologies. I'm not claiming the Bible gives the date in those exact words. I'm saying the timeline is derived from the ages and generations recorded in it. If you believe those figures cannot be used to establish a chronology, explain why. But you can't dismiss the calculation simply because the Bible doesn't print the final date on its pages. And on evolution, my point remains that Genesis doesn't explain the origin of today's biodiversity. If your position is that Genesis only describes creation and naming, then fine. We agree that the book itself doesn't explain how today's diversity of species came about. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 7:09am On Oct 24 |
MaxInDHouse, so God had to shrink the animals to fit them into the Ark? 😂 Where does Genesis say he did that? Once we start inventing extra miracles to solve every logistical problem in the story, we can make almost any story work. The question isn't whether an all-powerful God could theoretically do it. The question is whether the text says he did. And 2 Peter 3:8 says a day is like a thousand years to God, not that every day in Genesis represents a thousand years. Applying that verse to stretch the creation timeline is an interpretation, not an explicit statement in Genesis. You can't use a miracle the text never mentions as evidence that the account works, then use another passage to extend the timeline without showing that the passage was intended to do that.😂 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 7:03am On Oct 24 |
Vdestro, Dtruthspeaker, una dey complicate a simple matter. 😂 How do you have a Father and a Son but no mother? Now you're telling me God is not gendered, yet the Bible consistently refers to him as He, calls him Father, and even describes him with white hair and a beard in Daniel 7:9. Does a woman grow a beard like that? Genesis 1:27 says God created man in his image. If we're taking that literally, does God have a penis too? 😂 Or is it only the parts that suit the argument that resemble God? And remember Genesis 2. God created Adam first, then decided it wasn't good for him to be alone, so he made a woman from his rib. The woman comes later as a solution to Adam's loneliness, remember God is the ancient of days, and must have experienced extreme loneliness. Help yourself understand this family arrangement. God is Father, Jesus is Son, Mary is the human mother, but there is no divine mother. God should have got Joseph pregnant, that would be more divine... God is supposedly beyond gender, yet the language and imagery used to describe him are overwhelmingly male. If all these are metaphors, then say they're metaphors. But you can't insist that the language is literal when it supports your theology and suddenly symbolic when somebody starts asking questions. Una theology get exemption for everything. 🤣 |
| Christianity Etc › Culture, Conquest And The Claim Of Universality by Roycemadeit(op): 6:49am On Oct 24 |
THE DEITY YOU INHERITED: CULTURE, CONQUEST AND THE CLAIM OF UNIVERSALITY In a typical Nigerian Christian home, a child hears the names of the Christian deity, Jesus, and Amen before he learns his parents names. Through morning prayers, evening prayers, church services, and constant repetition, these names become part of his world before he is old enough to question them. He learns to acknowledge a deity before he understands the history behind that deity. By the time he begins to think independently, he has already been taught that this deity created him, loves him, and is the Creator of every human being on earth. What began as an inherited belief is presented to him as a universal truth. At what point does familiarity become evidence of truth? Cultures develop their own concepts of deities. Imagine the Hebrews worshipping their own deity, then being conquered and introduced to a foreign deity called Ubangiji. Would they automatically equate Ubangiji to their original deity? Hmmm? They would first have to understand the language, history, and cultural meaning associated with this unfamiliar Ubangiji. The same principle applies in reverse. The biblical deity is foreign to someone who has never encountered the Hebrew religious tradition. You cannot simply equate the biblical deity with Chukwu, Olódùmarè, or Unkulunkulu, and assume they are identical because all can be discussed in terms of divinity. Deities are embedded in the cultures through which people understand them. Their identities are communicated through stories, languages, rituals, laws, traditions, and collective memories. To understand the biblical deity, one must engage with the religious history of ancient Israel. To understand Chukwu, one must engage with Igbo divine thought. These are distinct traditions, and translating their names into the same English word does not make their deities identical. It is a scam. You cannot detach a deity from the people whose history gives that deity meaning and then declare him the ancestral Creator of every other people. The biblical deity belongs to a religious tradition rooted in ancient Israel. His covenants, laws, promises, prophets, and chosen people emerge from that tradition. The Bible tells the story of a particular people and their relationship with their deity. How, then, did this Hebrew deity become the ancestral Creator of the Igbo, Yoruba, and countless other peoples whose ancestors had their own religious traditions? I will analogize again, imagine the Yoruba had conquered ancient Israel, introduced the Israelites to Olodomare, and taught them that He was the Creator of all humanity. Generations later, if the Israelites have accepted Olodomare as their ancestral deity simply because their conquerors insisted that he was, would their memory of the doings of Yahweh be intact? Would it not affect their history, culture or even their identity? Would they not see themselves as second fiddle? Would that acceptance establish the truth of the claim, or demonstrate how one people's religious tradition could become another people's inherited belief? Christianity did not arrive in Africa as a neutral philosophical proposition detached from history. Its expansion was intertwined with missionary activity, European colonialism, Western education, and the suppression or denigration of indigenous religious traditions. The religion Africans encountered had also passed through Greek and Roman worlds, European institutions, theological controversies, and competing interpretations of scripture. Even the English word God carries its own linguistic history. It is not the original Hebrew name of the deity described in the Tanakh. Yet this English designation has become so familiar that many people treat it as though it were the natural, universal name of humanity's Creator. This is how a historical tradition can become mistaken for a universal inheritance. A child learns the name. His parents teach him the story. His church supplies the interpretation. His society reinforces the belief. Eventually, familiarity is mistaken for evidence that the belief must be universally true. But familiarity is not evidence, and cultural dominance is not proof of divine origin. The biblical claim that this deity loves the whole world. The same biblical narrative depicts him choosing Israel, fighting its battles, and ordering or carrying out the destruction of other peoples. If this deity intended every people to know him, why did knowledge of him depend so heavily on the historical transmission of Israel's religious tradition? The biblical narratives describe direct encounters with Abraham, Moses, and other figures. Jonah is even depicted as being compelled to travel to Nineveh. If divine intervention was possible in these accounts, why was the knowledge of this supposedly universal Creator left to spread through human conquest, cultural influence, and missionary expansion? Why not reveal himself unmistakably to the ancestors of the Twi, the Yoruba, and other peoples, rather than leave them to encounter his story through foreign missionaries centuries later? Revelation's description of the New Jerusalem. Its gates bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Christians have theological explanations for the inclusion of Gentiles, but the question remains: why must peoples with different ancestral histories enter another people's religious narrative to understand their place in the universe? My objection is not that Africans adoption of a foreign religious tradition should not be confused with the discovery of a universally established truth. If the biblical deity is truly the universal Creator, that claim requires justification beyond the global reach of the religion built around him. Conquest can introduce a people to a deity. Missionaries can teach them his name. Churches can shape their understanding of him. Generations can grow up believing his story is their own. None of these things, by themselves, establishes that the deity is the Creator of all humanity. Global dominance is not proof of universal origin. Had European missionaries and colonial powers never introduced Christianity to a particular African community, that community would not have learned the English word God or the biblical story of Jesus merely by contemplating the universe. It would have understood existence through the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural resources available within its own history. Had the Hausas conquered Israel, perhaps the Israelites would have learned about Ubangiji. Because European powers and missionaries helped spread Christianity across Africa, Africans learned about the Hebrew deity instead. The historical outcome could have been different. That one religious tradition conquered the cultural imagination of the world does not prove that its deity created that world. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 5:51am On Oct 24 |
Kobojunkie:. . Add up the years of the fictional ancestors mentioned in the Bible, and you’ll arrive at that timeline. If you can’t do the arithmetic, read up on Bishop James Ussher, who calculated creation as 4004 BC. I wasn’t the one dashing out years to people who may never have existed. I’m merely following the chronology provided by the book supposedly inspired by God. 😂  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: God-fearing: A Personal Reflection On Moral Agency by Roycemadeit(op): 1:06pm On Oct 23 |
Dtruthspeaker:. . An immoral parent can raise a moral child, just as a moral parent can raise an immoral child. Children are not photocopies of their parents. Sometimes, they learn what to do from their parents; other times, they learn what not to do. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 1:01pm On Oct 23 |
Dtruthspeaker:. . You just compared a mannequin made from plastic to a God described as Father with a Son. 😂 The question is whether calling God “Father” and Jesus “Son” carries gendered meaning. You can't turn around and say God is beyond gender whenever the implications become uncomfortable, while insisting on calling him Father and referring to his child as Son. I'm not saying God must have human biology. I'm saying the language used to describe him is gendered. Those are two different things. Your mannequin analogy hasn't addressed that distinction. Na you dey confuse the matter, then insult person when your analogy no fit answer the point. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 6:15am On Oct 23 |
Kobojunkie:. Genesis says Adam named the animals, and I took that to mean all the animals, including their different species. You brought up common ancestry to argue that Adam didn't necessarily have to name every species we have today. But Genesis itself doesn't say Adam named ancestral kinds that later evolved into today's species. That's your inference. And if we're bringing evolution into it, we also have to consider the millions of years involved, which doesn't fit the roughly 6,000-year biblical timeline Christians use. One can't use evolution to account for the diversity Genesis doesn't address, then act as though there's no tension between the two accounts. |
| Christianity Etc › God-fearing: A Personal Reflection On Moral Agency by Roycemadeit(op): 7:32pm On Oct 22 |
GOD-FEARING: A PERSONAL REFLECTION ON MORAL AGENCY I have once wondered why people present being God-fearing as evidence of good character. I find the idea unconvincing because religious belief does not automatically make anyone honest, compassionate, faithful, or responsible. I consider myself a realist. I believe in principles, learning from experience, and taking responsibility for one's decisions. When I do something and the outcome is bad, I examine what went wrong and adjust my approach. I do not need an invisible authority to explain why harmful actions have consequences. Religious people, like everyone else, can lie, cheat, exploit others, and abuse their positions. Some attend church every Sunday and still behave dishonestly. Others occupy pulpits, preach morality, and claim to represent God while contradicting the principles they teach. This does not mean religious people are inherently bad. Many genuinely draw inspiration from their faith and practise compassion, honesty, and generosity. My objection is to treating religious identity as proof of moral superiority. The same problem appears in relationships. Someone says they want a God-fearing husband or wife, presumably expecting faithfulness, honesty, and responsibility. But those qualities must be established through conduct, not from religious affiliation. I also question the tendency to outsource moral judgment to God, religious authorities, or the law. Laws are necessary, but those who make and enforce them can break them too. Some are Christians who proudly describe themselves as God-fearing. Their positions do not prevent misconduct, and their authority does not excuse it.. My concern is broader: people sometimes hide behind instructions, traditions, religious teachings, or established procedures rather than accept responsibility for their choices. Obedience is not the same as integrity, just as God-fearingness is not the same as goodness. A person who follows instructions without questioning their consequences can still cause harm. Saying "I was following orders" does not automatically absolve anyone of responsibility. I would rather associate with people who think critically, understand the consequences of their actions, and accept accountability when they are wrong. Religious belief may inspire good conduct, but it cannot replace independent moral reasoning. Ultimately, I am more interested in the principles people practise than the authorities they claim to obey. I would rather live among people who understand why they should do good than those who simply depend on external authority to tell them what is right. To me, genuine moral maturity begins when we take responsibility for our choices. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 7:30pm On Oct 22 |
Kobojunkie:. Genesis says Adam named the animals God created, but we haven't even discovered all animal species today. You brought in evolution to argue that Adam may have named ancestral kinds rather than every modern species. But evolution takes millions of years, while biblical chronology puts Adam roughly 6,000 years ago. That's the contradiction I'm pointing out. Genesis doesn't mention evolution, so you can't use evolution to explain the diversity of animals and then act as though Genesis already accounted for it. What questions might you still have? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 7:11pm On Oct 22 |
Kobojunkie:. . You are not delusional to believe a fictional character, Adam, named all the animals and birds in the world? . And it was you who mentioned evolution... |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 2:59pm On Oct 22*. Modified: 1:13pm On Oct 23 |
Dtruthspeaker:it's obvious that you lack comprehension. If God is father and has a child, a son isn't that gender-based? If I said, "I prayed to God and she answered me," would you not think I'm a pagan? Una reasoning na noodles seasoning 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 2:57pm On Oct 22 |
Kobojunkie:no matter how much you try to explain genesis. It makes no sense |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 7:16pm On Oct 21 |
Kobojunkie:. . I'm not saying Genesis must explain everything. I'm saying that if the animals were created as the text describes, and Adam named them, then the account doesn't explain how we got today's biodiversity. You're now limiting the scope of Genesis to creation while using evolution to explain what happened afterward. That's a modern reconciliation, not an explanation supplied by Genesis itself. My point is that the two accounts don't automatically agree simply because you assign them different roles. MAYBE YOU SHOULD REREAD MY INITIAL POST |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 7:05pm On Oct 21 |
Kobojunkie:. . You can reconcile Genesis with evolution, but then you're admitting Genesis doesn't fully explain the origin and diversity of animals. One cannot claim the Bible explains it all and then rely on evolution to explain what it leaves out. That reconciliation is your interpretation, not what Genesis actually says. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 4:54pm On Oct 21 |
Kobojunkie:. . Perhaps, one has to understand what evolution is, before using evolution to justify biblical claims. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 9:12am On Oct 21 |
Dtruthspeaker:So, children need mothers too? I thought the son of God, was conceived, carried to term and birth by his father. If the Son has a Father, where is the Mother? You cannot keep calling him Father and his offspring Son, then act surprised when someone asks about the missing woman in this divine family. 😂 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 9:09am On Oct 21 |
Kobojunkie:. . If Adam named the creatures God created, the question is how that account accommodates the biodiversity we see today. Saying he named only the creatures existing at the time doesn't resolve the issue; it simply leaves the origin of today's species unexplained by Genesis. You cannot claim the Bible explains the origin of all animals and then rely on evolution to fill in what it doesn't explain. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 9:35pm On Oct 20 |
Kobojunkie:. . Genesis presents Adam as naming the animals, while Christians place him within a 6,000-year timeline. Evolution explains today's biodiversity through changes over millions of years. The contradiction arises when the bible claims Adam named every modern species while you are also using evolution to explain how those species developed. Many species would have existed long before Adam. Genesis offers no evolutionary timeline to reconcile these claims... |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 6:42pm On Oct 20*. Modified: 9:36pm On Oct 20 |
Kobojunkie:. . All the animals in the world entered Ark... Even until now we haven't learned of all animals but Adam named them all... including different species of each... 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND by Roycemadeit(op): 6:41pm On Oct 20 |
MaxInDHouse:You when dey justify banditry 😂 ... Because God who is love commanded it. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 6:36pm On Oct 20 |
Dtruthspeaker: Our father is now our mother 1 Like |
