Ayomide Oluwaranti

Seeking to grow and build for God and for humanity.
I do Brand Design & Graphic Design, Learning UI/UX Design.

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

@Jomo_Of_FUTA Today

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

Practising the "safe Islam" isn't the Prototype.

In the same way, if you did study a little on the origins of the Feminism movement, you'd find out that the many of the things you consider extremes are the natural fleshing out of the foundations of Feminism in the first place.

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

I think the argument that the extremities of Feminism does not invalidate it doesn't work, because of its origin.
Just like in comparing Christianity & Islam; if there are any actions that seem to be contradictory, I could go back and examine the life & teachings of Jesus and..

[ADEWUYI Roseline Adebimpe @AdewuyiRoseline]

I believe it is a bit premature to argue that most of these issues have been resolved. It would be difficult to look at gender-based violence, child marriage, workplace discrimination, unequal caregiving burdens, underrepresentation in leadership, and restrictions on women's rights around the world and conclude that gender inequality is no longer a significant issue.

The fact that women in Afghanistan face more severe restrictions does not mean there are no issues elsewhere. Injustice exists on a spectrum. We can recognize extreme cases while also addressing less extreme but still real inequalities in our own societies.

I also find the identity argument interesting because Christians routinely organize around specific causes without viewing them as a threat to the cause of Christ. Preachers regularly address racism, poverty, human trafficking, corruption, and other social injustices from the pulpit. The fact that Christians care about these issues does not mean the issues no longer deserve focused advocacy.

As for the argument about excesses, Christianity itself has had excesses throughout history, and preachers have continually labored to correct them through teaching, rebuke, accountability, and reform. Christians do not abandon the Christian identity because some believers have distorted it. We address the abuses while retaining the core mission.

We can debate the label "feminist" and acknowledge that every movement has excesses, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that meaningful gender inequality no longer exists or that concern about it is no longer necessary.

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

Mohammed. I would then use that to judge whether whatever anyone is doing corresponds. If you did that you'd find out that an argument could be made that some form of Jihad is endorsed within the doctrinal framework of the Quran and Hadith and Mohammad's life.
So, anyone...

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

"If a Prostitute decided to be a good person, no matter how much she tries, that won't make her a daughter of a King; but if a Prince proposes to her, that's a completely different matter" — Martin Luther

Guys, it's Faith Alone—in Christ Alone 💫

[Faithfulness Okom @AttorneyF_]

I’ve heard so many people insist there has to be more than one way to God, as though a single path is inherently unfair and multiple options are self-evidently just.

But this argument almost never engages the actual question. It skips straight to fairness and never asks: fair given what? Fair given which diagnosis?

Jesus Christ is not a preference. He is a prescription. And prescriptions are exclusive because diseases are specific.

The Christian claim is not that God is stingy with salvation. It is that sin carries a documented consequence which is death and separation from God, and that consequence requires a specific solution. You cannot treat a debt by being a better person going forward. The debt still exists. You cannot treat it by praying in a certain direction or performing symbolic acts. Those things do not touch the penalty but only demonstrate that you have underestimated it.

So when someone says there must be another way, they are making one of two arguments without realising it: either sin is not serious enough to require the cross, or God was too dramatic when he said the consequence was death. Both positions require you to call God a liar. That is your right. But it is not a generous theology, it is a pretentious contradiction.

And perhaps more importantly, the message of Christ is not only about eternity. Accepting the resurrection means accepting your nature. It means living with the knowledge that every time you sin, you are crucifying him again. That image does not automatically stop sin, but it creates friction. It creates gravity, and it makes repentance something you pursue, not something you schedule.

A judge cannot pardon an offense the defendant refuses to acknowledge. But the deeper problem is not even guilt, it is jurisdiction. When you reject Christ, you are not simply saying “I am innocent.” You are saying “this court has no authority over me.” You are contesting God’s right to declare the consequence in the first place.

But God has already entered the record. 1 John 1 says you have sinned. Romans 6 says the wage of that sin is death. These are not opinions. They are the charges, filed and documented. Every other religious path; Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, however sincere and however demanding, hands you a program for self-improvement. They say: do this, abstain from that, accumulate enough, and you can close the gap yourself. They make you the solution to your own problem. Christianity alone says the gap cannot be closed from your side, and then points to the only one who closed it from his.

So the question “why can’t there be many ways to God?” is really the question “why can’t I negotiate the terms of my own pardon?” And the answer is that you are not the judge. You did not set the penalty. You do not get to revise it because you find it inconvenient. The court is already in session, and the evidence is already submitted. The only remaining question is whether you will accept what has already been done on your behalf, or insist that a crime you committed in a court you refuse to recognise deserves a sentence you are willing to serve.

Grace is not the absence of consequence. It is consequence fully met, by someone else, on your behalf. Rejecting that is the most expensive pride a person can carry.

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

@NealGardner_ It's unbelievable 😂
Something feels off

I hope there isn't going to be another round of registration issues after all the signings are made, and certain people will have to be persuaded to take the exit door.

[Iyaloja of Fields 🙌🏽 @bisolabadejo]

What many people miss is that Christianity is not merely a religion one practices alongside other ideological identities. Christianity is a total worldview. It is a complete reorientation of reality through the Lordship of Christ.

This is why the New Testament language of salvation is so expansive. We are not merely told to “attend” Christianity. We are said to be:

born again (John 3:3),
transferred into a Kingdom (Colossians 1:13),
adopted into a family (Romans 8:15),
made citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20),
transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2),
crucified and raised with Christ (Galatians 2:20).

Christianity is not simply a belief system added onto an existing identity. It is the death and replacement of the old identity altogether.

This is why phrases like:

“Christian feminist,”
“Christian nationalist,”
“Christian liberal,”
“Christian conservative,”

can become problematic when the adjective begins to function as the interpretive lens through which Christianity itself is understood.

Because Christianity was never designed to be a modifier. Christ is not an attachment to another worldview. Christ is THE worldview.

The believer does not primarily derive meaning from ideology, tribe, politics, gender theory, class struggle, or culture. The believer derives meaning from union with Christ.

Paul says in Galatians 2:20:

“I have been crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me…” (KJV)

Notice the violence of salvation language. Christianity is not self-improvement. It is death and resurrection.

This is also why Scripture repeatedly presents the Kingdom of God as an all-encompassing reality:

a Kingdom (Matthew 6:33),
a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17),
a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9),
a family (Ephesians 2:19),
the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Even the word “Lord” is governmental language. To call Jesus “Lord” is to declare ultimate allegiance.

This is where the C.S. Lewis idea becomes important. Lewis argued that Christianity is not merely a set of moral suggestions added onto life; it is the lens through which all of life is interpreted. Like light itself:

You do not merely look at Christianity; you look through it and see everything else differently.

So when someone says:

“Jesus is a feminist,”

the concern is not simply semantic. The concern is theological.

Because Jesus is not best understood as a subset of a modern ideology. Rather, every ideology must bow before Christ and be examined through Him.

Christianity certainly affirms truths that feminism identified:

the dignity of women,
the value of women,
the protection of women from abuse,
the spiritual equality of men and women before God.

But Christianity also critiques every human ideology wherever it departs from God’s design.

That is why the Christian’s highest identity is never ultimately:

feminist,
capitalist,
socialist,
traditionalist,
progressive,
nationalist,
activist.

The Christian’s highest identity is: “in Christ.”

Colossians 3:11 says: “…Christ is all, and in all.” (KJV)

Not Christ plus.
Not Christ modified.
Not Christ filtered through ideology.

Christ is all.

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

@tehmie_ Me I didn't even get an assessment link

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

Any serious club shouldn't be having Kounde as their right back tbh.
Let me not even talk about how unreasonable you have to be to pull a last man in an all important knockout game. Eric??? 🤦🤦

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

Bruhhhhh

No contest!

[BIG HYCE @thehyce]

I dare you to mention a 10/10 album.

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

@_apex_divine Weldoneee

Pls how many assessments and interviews does the NLNG graduate trainee recruitment take?

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

Yesss, because drawing a tattoo can affect the conscience of weak believers but drinking beer and posting it cannot 🤭🤭

[NOAV (Healing is coming) @its_noav]

No dog in this fight but was it not just few days ago some of us were posting pictures of our favourite beers? 😂😭

But you want to tear Pastor Kingsley’s shirt?😂

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

I'm working on something for small and non-tech-savvy business owners to help them do better with financial bookkeeping and documentation.

I will share more details soon! 🤭

[Oloyede Olayinka @YinKysmileS]

What’s at stake here is not whether the Spirit is sovereign (He is), nor whether gifts differ (they do), but whether we are allowed to shrink the plain scope of Jesus’ promise in Mark 16 by importing a framework from elsewhere and then treating that import as if it were “context.”

I’m going to present this as a single, continuous argument, because the issues you raised are interconnected. And I’ll keep coming back to one controlling question:

When Jesus says, “These signs will follow those who believe,” what authorizes us to interpret “those who believe” as “some who believe”?

If there is no authorization from the text or from the broader canonical pattern, then the safer, more reverent position is to let Christ’s words stand at their natural breadth.

Salvation and spiritual gifts: not equal in value, but comparable in category

You objected that I compared the gift of salvation to gifts like tongues, and you’re right to say they are not equal in weight. Eternal life is the singular, saving gift that brings union with Christ, justification, adoption, and final glory (John 3:16; Rom 8:30). Spiritual gifts are for ministry and edification and belong to the “already/not-yet” economy of the Church (1 Cor 12–14). They may cease when “the perfect” arrives (1 Cor 13:8–10).

But my comparison was never “tongues = salvation.” My point was a theological one: a “gift” can be genuinely offered in God’s intention and yet be resisted, neglected, or not entered into by many without that failure redefining God’s intent. Scripture repeatedly presents this pattern.

God desires that none perish (2 Pet 3:9) and that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4) yet many reject the gospel and perish (John 5:40). Jesus Himself laments, “How often I would have gathered your children… and you were not willing!” (Matt 23:37). Whatever your soteriology, you cannot read those texts honestly and conclude: “Since not all experience X, God never intended X broadly.” Scripture refuses that logic.

That is the only reason I used salvation as a parallel category: not to equalize their importance, but to expose a faulty interpretive move, using uneven human participation to narrow divine speech. The fact that gifts are time-bound does not remove the interpretive point: a gracious provision can be broad in God’s desire and yet unevenly entered into by people. This is not controversial; it is Bible.

And in fact, the Old Testament itself displays the same tension. Israel is called “a kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6), yet the priestly function is concentrated in Levi for Israel’s life in that era. Moses can still say, without contradiction, “Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit on them!” (Num 11:29). That statement is not about office; it is about desire and availability under God. It is a window into God’s heart: not stingy, not restrictive, not “elite-only,” but expansive.

So yes: salvation and tongues are not equal in value. But the hermeneutical point remains: you can’t argue, “because not all participate, God never meant it for all.” That is not how Scripture reasons.

“Experience vs Scripture”: I’m not appealing to experience; I’m refusing to let experience shrink Scripture

You also clarified that your beliefs are shaped by Scripture, not experience. Good, I’m not accusing you of experience-based theology. My point is sharper: even a Scripture-shaped reader can still smuggle in an assumption that comes from observed reality and then baptize it as “biblical context.” We all do it if we’re not careful.

Here is the assumption I’m challenging: “When Jesus says signs follow believers, that doesn’t mean believers; it means the believing community in which only some individuals manifest those signs.”

Notice: that may be true in terms of observed distribution, but the text must establish that move. Otherwise, we’ve used a (real) phenomenon, uneven manifestation, to rewrite what Jesus said.

So this is not “my experience vs your exegesis.” It is “what does the text say, and what does it not say?”

The “elite” misunderstanding: I was never claiming you taught elitism; I meant “subset”

Let me correct the relational piece clearly: when I used the word “elite,” I was not accusing you of saying “tongues is for special Christians.” I agree with you that the Church is “chosen,” “set apart,” a holy people (1 Pet 2:9). What I meant, poorly phrased, was a subset inside the Church: that “those who believe” becomes, in practice, “those believers whom the Spirit chooses to give tongues to,” such that the promise is no longer attached to believing as such but to a narrower group.

So: I’m not charging you with pride or elitism. I’m saying your interpretive move functionally narrows Jesus’ language. That’s the issue.

The core exegetical issue: Mark 16 attaches the signs to believing, not to offices, maturity levels, or gift-profiles

Now to the heart.

Mark 16:15–18 (whatever one concludes about longer-ending textual questions, the argument here is about the claim you’re making from the text you’re already using): Jesus commissions gospel mission and then says, “These signs will follow those who believe.” The grammatical subject is not “apostles,” not “leaders,” not “some gifted saints,” but “those who believe.”

You argued that Jesus moves from singular (“whoever believes”) to plural (“they… them… those”). But that transition does not narrow; it broadens. It moves from individual entry (“whoever believes”) to the collective identity and witness of believers (“those who believe”). That is normal language, not a coded restriction.

If we are going to say “those who believe” does not actually mean believers as such, we must show the textual cue that demands it. Where is the cue? Where does Jesus signal, “I mean only some believers”? He does not. The restriction is inferred from another discussion, Paul’s diversity-of-gifts teaching, and then read back into Mark’s commission.

But Mark 16 is not a body-function passage. It’s a mission passage. It’s not about “the eye and the hand.” It’s about the gospel going out and the risen Christ confirming His word (compare Mark 16:20). In other words: this isn’t a treatise on differing roles; it’s a declaration of the kind of divine accompaniment that marks the gospel’s advance through believers.

And here’s the most important point: the signs listed are not only tongues. The text bundles casting out demons, tongues, protection in hostile environments, and healing.

If Christ meant “some believers,” it is strange that He did not say “some.” Scripture is capable of saying “some,” “to one… to another,” “not all,” when it intends restriction (1 Cor 12:8–10). But Mark 16 does not use that distribution language. It uses promise language.

So the question returns: what in the text forces your narrowing? I keep asking because that’s the nail: without a forcing cue, narrowing is not “context”; it’s an import.

“But 1 Corinthians 12 says not everyone has every gift”

Yes, and that passage must be honored. But it must be honored in its own scope.

1 Corinthians 12 is addressing a specific Corinthian problem: pride, ranking gifts, envy, and despising weaker members. Paul’s solution is not “therefore certain gifts are categorically unavailable to believers,” but “there is one Spirit working through a diverse body, and every member matters.”

Even the rhetorical questions (“Do all speak with tongues?” 1 Cor 12:30) occur in a context where Paul is describing public, corporate gift-function in gathered assembly. That matters because 1 Corinthians 14 distinguishes tongues used in corporate worship (requiring interpretation for edification) from tongues used as prayer and praise “to God” (1 Cor 14:2, 14–17). The Corinthian confusion was largely about how gifts serve edification in the assembly, not whether the Spirit is willing to give broadly.

And crucially, the same Paul who says “not all” in one context also says, “I want you all to speak in tongues” (1 Cor 14:5), “I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all” (1 Cor 14:18), and “Do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Cor 14:39). Paul is not embarrassed by the gift, and he does not treat it as a rare elite badge. He treats it as a legitimate grace that he expects a church to make room for, and that he is happy to see widespread, while regulating it for love and order.

So the right synthesis is not: “Since gifts differ, therefore Jesus’ promise is automatically narrow.” The right synthesis is: the Spirit can distribute functions diversely in corporate assembly while Christ can still promise signs to believers as they carry His gospel. Those are not contradictions; they are different questions.

The body passage explains interdependence. The commission passage explains accompaniment. Don’t collapse them.

Acts shows a pattern: tongues repeatedly appears as a normal sign accompanying gospel inclusion and Spirit outpouring

You rightly said power is more than tongues (Acts 1:8). Agreed. But Acts also repeatedly uses tongues as a significant sign when the Spirit is poured out across boundary lines:

At Pentecost: “They were all filled… and began to speak in other tongues” (Acts 2:4).

In Cornelius’ house: “The Holy Spirit fell on all who heard… for they were hearing them speaking in tongues” (Acts 10:44–46).

In Ephesus: “The Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying” (Acts 19:6).

In each case, tongues functions as a Spirit-given sign, not as an award for a spiritual class. It’s connected to inclusion, empowerment, and witness.

And please notice something devastating to the “narrowing” move: in Acts 10, the Spirit falls while they are listening (Acts 10:44). Nobody there argues, “This happened to only some because God only intends it for some.” The narrative emphasis is the opposite: God is showing that Gentiles receive the same gift (Acts 11:17) and should not be treated as second-tier.

So Acts does not read like “tongues is for a subset.” It reads like “tongues is a recurring sign that accompanies Spirit outpouring as the gospel expands.”

“It will cease” does not mean “it was never meant broadly”

You appealed to 1 Corinthians 13 (cessation at the perfect). Fine. But even if one assumes cessation at consummation, that only tells you the gift is temporary, not that it is restrictive. A temporary gift can still be intended for broad distribution during the season God gives it. The manna was temporary and still for the whole camp. The cloud and fire were temporary and still for the whole camp. Temporariness does not equal exclusivity.

If someone does not speak in tongues, I am not calling them unsaved, inferior, or disobedient. The New Testament never uses tongues as the basis for justification or union with Christ. The fruit of the Spirit, love, holiness, confession of Christ, these are the marks of genuine life (Gal 5:22–23; 1 John 3:14; Rom 10:9–10).

But it is a different claim to say: “Not all have, therefore not all should expect, therefore Jesus did not mean all.” That is precisely what I’m resisting.

Because that logic quietly trains believers to treat parts of Scripture like this:

“Jesus said it, but He didn’t really mean it that way.”

And once we give ourselves permission to shrink Christ’s promises by importing restrictions He did not state, we will do it elsewhere too.

So my conviction remains simple:

If Scripture wants to restrict, it restricts.

If Scripture wants to distribute explicitly (“to one… to another…”), it does so (1 Cor 12:8–10).

But Mark 16 does not distribute; it declares.

Jesus attaches these signs to “those who believe,” and nothing in the text proves “a subset of those who believed.”

Therefore, the most faithful posture is not to weaponize the promise or police believers, but to honor the breadth of Christ’s words, to refuse to shrink them, and to encourage the Church to receive all that Christ has purchased and promised, while keeping love, order, and edification central (1 Cor 14:26, 33, 40).

That is not triumphalism. That is reverence.

[Revd Dr Olaleye Oluwafemi @pfemiolaleye]

7 Mountains of influence .

According to many the church has to conquer the 7 mountains of influence to shape culture . So most teaching series is about this . Usually about the strategy and “wisdom” to take over this mountains .

Let’s examine these 7 mountains .

They are ;

Government: Politics and military power.
Business: Economics, finance, and commerce.
Education: Wisdom, learning, and the public school system.
Family: The institution of marriage and the home, responsible for early mindset formation.
Religion: Religious institutions and belief systems.
Media: Mass communication, including television, radio, internet, and newspapers.
Arts & Entertainment: Culture, sports, and entertainment. 

As stated in an earlier post the only one of these mountains that Christian’s in Nigeria haven’t “conquered” totally is the political mountain however even at that let’s do some numbers .

Out of Nigeria’s 36 states governors and the FCT we have 21 Christian’s .

Of our 109 senators , approximately 51 are Christians.

Of the 360 House of Representatives about 170 are Christians.

Of the 47 members of the presidents cabinet about 20 are Christian’s .

Yet corruption is rife . Insecurity is constant . Power is epileptic with Christian ministers of power who embezzled funds!

Let’s go to Business / Finance .

18 out of the 24 Managing Directors of commercial banks in Nigeria are Christians.

Of the Top 10 richest men in Nigeria only 2 are Muslims , the remaining 8 are Christians .

What of entertainment and media ?

Let’s look at Actors , musicians and celebrities.

Of the top 50 musicians in Nigeria , 82% are Christians while 18% are Muslim .

The Muslims include folks like whizkid who grew up in a mixed faith home .

Of the top 20 well known actors in Nigeria , 90% are Christian and 20% are Muslims .

90% of all TV stations in Nigeria are owned by Christian’s while 10% are owned by Muslims .

As you can see Christians are doing very well on top of these mountains already .

We are struggling to see the light of Christ shine through because of poor discipleship and teachings that focused majorly on how to use God to advance our own selfish agendas on the earth .

We are seated on these mountains but are afraid of representing Christ . These mountains weren’t designed for evangelism as they are secular entities .

Will the believer play in these spaces ? We already are ! What we need to do is major on spiritual growth in church and allow the secular spaces major on career development and growth . We can have special meetings here and there to stress certain areas for believers in the secular world but must never make that the thrust of our teachings .

It is when the church teaches Christian , kingdom values to a disciple and trains him to represent those values unashamedly that the believer can shine on these mountains for Christ .

We are on the mountains currently but we aren’t shining as we ought . We were taught in churches too much about how to climb them but weren’t trained to develop character to stand on them as sanctified , holy , separate men who are sold out for one purpose - the masters purpose .

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

@darasoba This is huge, weldone!

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

@Messilizer01 Factsss. Always overdoing it to prove himself.
Too careless for a defender.

[Ayomide Oluwaranti @Ayomide_Davidd]

So true

[JennieUI/UX Designer @jenidesignns]

We don’t admit it enough most of us don’t fear starting, we fear being seen starting.