₦airaland Forum

gensteejay:
You maybe right.

But you may also be wrong. Otem calls the history book he's compiling the Doctrine of the UFOS. That sounds like a religious book considering the use of the word, doctrine.

And what, would you say, is the doctrine in the Doctrine of the UFOS?

Whoa! This is big! Those NURTW people are finally being confronted. I bet they fight back by striking. Molete to Oke Bola is walkable, but try Challenge to Alakia and come tell me your legs did not complain.

Interesting to see who wins this war!

gensteejay:
And it's very plausible that a new religion will be designed, based on his teachings.

Philosophy. Way of thinking. Way of seeing things. Understanding etc, instead.

jcross19:
, logically the words formless and void will tell us that something is in existence before..

Please explain how

Formless - without a clear or definite shape or structure

And

Void - completely empty

Logically "tell us that something is in existence before",

And it was

Ruined - having been irreparably damaged or harmed.

tintingz:
Do you ever doubt if your God exist?

Don't you know my atheist credentials, tintingz? I was probably an atheist longer than you breathed oxygen, not only doubting that God existed, but knowing categorically that gods are figments of the imaginations that people make up in their own heads!

No, I don't doubt God exists anymore because I can look into my head and check if God is in my mind.

tintingz:
I don't believe in any God.

Neither do I! I'm not the stupid sort who refuses to check if the wet and cold I feel is not rain falling on my head making me feel wet and cold! I went up the mountain with Moses, Aaron, the 70 and co, and checked for myself so now I don't believe God exists because I saw what I saw up the mountain and now I know and understand.

tintingz:
Then you don't have faith in your God, not a religious person. And oh, you should also be sceptical on the questions you're to ask your God.

I "don't have faith" in the God that is in my mind? How can that possibly be tintingz?

Is it that in your opinion, I should go up the mountain with Moses, Aaron, the 70, etc, to check if God is there and then after seeing what I saw, I should then come back down and be doubting what I saw at the top of the mountain, because I am being sceptical despite having checked and found the evidence?!

Is that not the same as rain is pissing down on my head and I am wet and cold but claiming to myself that it is a nice sunny day and I'm having a great time? Am I blind and did not see that I am cold and wet and rain is pissing on my head or what?!

Abeg don't make me vent anger on your head tintingz, for asking me to be stupid!

tintingz:
You are like the ancient Greek sceptists that question their Gods.

Bravo! Finally, he sees, somewhat that I am in no way unique! Lol.

Yes, you are correct. "I do not live by bread alone but on every Word that God wrote and spoke and that one can get one's hands on or one will be malnourished!"

tintingz:
Have you not heard of apostle Thomas whom the word doubting Thomas is used after him?

Yes, I have heard of Didymos Judas Thomas. And he was not cursed! The wiki you linked shows the immense work he went on to accomplish and the Gospel in his name is a very amazingly important book as you can see from just the first three verses.

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.

1) And He said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."

2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you..When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

But if you insist from the above that Thomas was cursed, then, God, curse me now like you cursed Thomas! Please!

tintingz:
Here's Jesus cursing the Jews for doubting him, after they ask him for signs, here was his response,

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas". (Mathew 12:39)

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. (Mathew 16:4)

He 'cursed' the scribes and Pharisees actually, Jews, no doubt, but only some of them who, despite all the signs he had already openly done and which they had seen, refused to acknowledge what they had seen and asked for more signs as if one more sign would make any difference to them. Besides, these brood of vipers earned their living telling people to 'believe' the stories in the old Testament by giving stones that there hearts were full of instead of the life affirming bread, and now Jesus is right in front of their eyes fulfilling those same stories that they preach and earn a living from and they are asking for signs?!

They must be like the stupid people who are wet and cold because rain is pissing down on their heads and they are claiming that it is a nice sunny day and they are having a great time after checking that it is indeed rain that is falling on their head and making them wet and cold, and they are even deceiving other people who are wet and cold because rain is pissing down on their head, that it is a nice sunny day and they are having a great time! Do tell, were they not even already cursed by their own duplicity and deceit?

They are lucky if Jesus cursed them! He should have turned them into pillars of salt or something. But "Gentle Jesus meek and mild", as they say, and ever so wise, just told them to do some work and travel to Nineveh if they wanted to see signs.

I bet you they didn't even bother!

tintingz:
You can see religion is not the bedrock of enlightenment nor science per se, it's scepticism.

No! I cannot see anything of the sort. Nor can I see where "religion" is a "bedrock", mind. But then, I never made the claim that religion was a bedrock of anything actually. Even though, religion was how very early primitives did "science" in their primitive day and which has evolved into science today through the application of skepticism, which is why we are more enlightened than early primitives who were limited to what the gods allegedly told them.

gensteejay:
No, I didn't. I just didn't find any concrete evidence to change my stance that skepticism is not a religion.

You "not finding", and "it not being there", are obviously not exactly the same thing.

gensteejay:
All these questions will complicate things. If skepticism is a religion, then just about anything can be termed religion as well.

Questions never complicate anything! If anything might complicate, it is answers, and those who find answers complicated should go find something uncomplicated to do or ask more questions so they uncomplicate and understand, if that is their desire. That's how one acquires knowledge after all.

On that note, why say, "If skepticism is a religion"? I never said "skepticism is a religion", so why do you keep saying "if", and then argue against your own "if" being a religion? I seriously can not say I understand why you'd do that

gensteejay:
I could say Chelsea (as a fan of the club) is my religion. Or Physics or my work is my religion. People say these things. That doesn't make sports, science, etc. a religion.

Yes, you could say "Chelsea is your own religion", and bow down and worship Chelsea when you want to or however you wish to, but explain to me please how or why, I get to argue with you that Chelsea is not your religion, if perchance you say it is?

Is it buda's place to be telling you whether you should worship Chelsea or not? Or am I disagreeing that the "Chelsea that is your religion", is not your religion; or that you can't or don't or shouldn't worship Chelsea however you might want to worship your Chelsea religion? Is buda the one paying for your Chelsea jersey or buying your ticket to Stamford Bridge? Who, gensteejay, told you that buda is the god who decides for you, a grown up person with a reasonable sound mind, whether Chelsea can or cannot be your religion?

I'll very strongly advise you to strongly inform buda to go fuq budaself, personally, if buda ever attempts to assume to be telling you whether Chelsea is your religion or not! I mean, who da fuq jumped up and made buda, or whoever, some god over gensteejay!!

gensteejay:
Instead of saying skepticism, atheism, science, etc. is a religion; IMO, I feel it is better to state that some people approach a field like science, for instance, as a religion. The 2 positions are quite different.

State whatever you like please or "feel better to state". I myself can only state for myself. And if someone decides that "skepticism, atheism, science, Chelsea etc" is their religion, its really got nothing to do with me since they have in no way put a rope around my neck and forced me to worship their skeptic, atheist, science, Chelsea, etc gods with them, or practise their religion with them against my own desires and wishes.

And on a humorous note, and so you don't think I'm offended. Millwall is my own football religion. I see the Den from my window so can easily 'bow down' and 'worship' it whenever I like and from the warm comfort of my living room. And before you start making fun of my choice of football religion, note that, "No one likes us", and we don't give a flying fuq from hell, because "we are Millwall, from the Den"!

No worshipping my football religion with me now, gensteejay, lol.

tintingz:
God don't like people doubting him and questioning his authorities. I gave example of Jesus cursing the Jews and even got annoyed at one of his disciples

Your God does not like you "doubting him and questioning his authorities" tintingz. My God created me the questioning way that I am.

I can only suggest you change Gods if you don't like the God you have. One should not be bowing to a God that gives one a brain but does not like when one uses it to question.

tintingz:
You're not a faith person.

Yet, here is me with so much faith that I would question my God so that I have even more faith once my God provides me with answers to my questioning.

P.s. You did not give any "example of Jesus cursing the Jews and even got annoyed at one of his disciples". If you don't mind, provide chapter and verse please, you should know by now that buda does not do "them say"!

tintingz:
When you are sceptical about something you don't have confidence and trust in that thing.

This is true. When one is sceptical about something, one has no faith nor "confidence and trust" in that thing. That's why I am not sceptical about things I have faith and "confidence and trust" in. But I think you might be applying your scepticism at the wrong time.

I, do not go about being sceptical about things that I have checked etc and know. Like most people, when rain is falling on my head and I look up and see rain falling and I am wet and I am cold, I do not stupidly stand there being sceptical about the rain that is falling on my head making me feel wet and cold, because I would have finished applying my scepticism and now know and have faith and "confidence and trust" that I am wet and I am cold as a result of the rain that is falling on my head.

I start off being sceptical about things, see. That scepticism motivates me to diligently check, research, explore, question, experiment etc, those things, and after checking, researching, exploring, questioning, experimenting etcing those things, I now have information and data and knowledge about those things that I can base my faith and "confidence and trust" in on, or not, if that be the case.

tintingz:
God does not like scepticism or being sceptical, even Jesus mentioned something about people doubting him and even cursed some Jews.

Sorry tintingz, but where did you get that from?!

God never told me any such crap. But if by chance God did say to me that "God does not like scepticism or being sceptical", then I, buda, would tell that God to go fuq itself and look for its worshippers somewhere else, because I, buda, doth not bow down and worship a God who claims to have created me the sceptical way that I am and then tells me the sceptism created in me is unpure and it doesn't like it!

In fact, . like, how ridiculously silly!

tintingz:
Scepticism is more like being neutral and questioning things, being religious has to do with faith, you don't question your beliefs/dogmas.

"You", be "neutral" and "don't question your beliefs/dogmas". (I'm advising you again tintingz, to talk for yourself though let me add so you don't think I'm annoyed that you don't heed my advice).

I religiously question beliefs and dogmas etc all the time because by questioning them do I get to separate the wheat from the chaff instead of accepting any odd dogma or belief blindly.

Dear Mods HumbledbYGrace, mukina2, osystein,

We are getting accusations against you all of bias and unfair banning of certain individuals.

Can you kindly come and explain to us if any of these allegations are true please, and why?

With the utmost respect and regard,

buda

If you have been unfairly banned can you quote this post and include details of your ban so the mods can see what is being referred to please.

Cc Seun.

schwarzkopf:
Agencies, aides, sidekicks and lot more have been lying on Drumpf behalf. Sarah Sanders telling shit about Comey at the press pool and telling Mueller another for a start.

Come on schwarzkopf, you know what we're like, evidence will stand up and slap us in the middle of our two eyes and we'd still scream our usual "fake news" mantra as if we can't feel it slapping us between the eyes!

Post source please.

FOLYKAZE:
It is very important to talk about those words and understand the terminologies before diving into any discussion. Without that, we go round in an endless circle as we have seen in many cases in the past.

A truer word has not been spoken I'd say.

It is most important for anyone who claims to be a "seeker of knowledge", or a researcher, and everyone in fact, because if one doesn't
"understand (and explain) the terminologies before diving into any discussion" one would not understand what is being said and one would be "going round in endless circles" and would never learn, nor teach, for that matter, and we would not grow nor evolve.

gensteejay:
Nothing concrete in this submission. When scepticism gets included in the list of world religions, along with other areas like sports (some people say their club or even their profession is their religion), that will make you a prophet or seer

When we are being factual, every sane person knows today's religions. Unless they want to be hypocritical.

Sorry, but did you just completely disregard the definition of religion that I gave? Did it include scepticism as a world religion? Can one not be religiously sceptical, or be sceptical about religion, or be both at the same time? Or is it the case that one cannot be one of the not "sane people" like wiki and I appear to be? Or is wiki not factual enough?

Which is it?

gensteejay:
That's scepticism. If that's a religion, can you tell us the god(s), holy book, tenets of worship of scepticism?

All these are well-known traits of religion.

Scepticism is an aspect in philosophy that goes as far back as the ancient times. I would like to see you present facts that can back up your assertion.

I have not said anywhere that a sceptical person needs to be religious, though one can be religiously sceptical, or be sceptical about religion.

As for evidence, I myself would claim to be sceptical about religion which is why I look deeply into religion in the first place and not just accept any dogma, conviction, belief, 'God said', etc without researching them first; and I would also claim to be religiously sceptical at the same time, since I religiously spend my time being sceptical about religion.

I'm sorry I am unable to physically bring myself before you as evidence however, but you might be able to tell from what I have written over the years.

gensteejay:
I can see you took offence about my earlier remark. Sorry, no insult was meant.

Well, just in case you actually care for evidence, please know that I have not taken any offence about your earlier remark which was in no way offensive. In my own view, you asked an honest question, which I admired immensely, and I simply responded.

No one should need to apologise for being inquisitive and for asking questions, and the person being asked should not be offended unless the person being asked is an ignorant arrogant fuq, which I hope I am not.

tintingz:
Ok, does questioning and doubting (scepticism) looks like that definition above?

I'm sorry, I don't get you. You cannot possibly be claiming one cannot be sceptical about "religion", the definition of which "there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes it". Or are you? Why should a definition given for "religion" look like a definition for "scepticism"?

The definition above was given as a definition of "religion", and not a definition of "scepticism", which generally means "a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief or dogma or philosophy, particularly epistemology, and can be applied to any topic such as politics, religion, philosophy and pseudoscience etc", according to Wiki, and to God, according to me and as shown by my going up the mountain with Moses and Aaron and the 70 et al, which is scepticism par excellence if you asked me, and about God, which is often a topic of religion.

Ihedinobi3:
The translation of tohu wa bhohu is better as "a chaotic ruin"...

"Better" according to you. And I have no beef with you defining words as you wish, or, to use your words, "tell the Bible what to do". However, nowhere is it implied in the text we both have access to that tohu wa bhohu which translates to "without form, and void" means "ruined"! And if it somewhere does, please kindly show me so that I not be led astray or inadvertently lead others astray, if you care to, that is.

tintingz:
Sceptist are not faith people.

This "sceptic" has immense faith (confidence and trust), in what this "sceptic" knows because this "sceptic" has done and continues to do her research.

gensteejay:
Nothing concrete in this submission. When scepticism gets included in the list of world religions, along with other areas like sports (some people say their club or even their profession is their religion), that will make you a prophet or seer

When we are being factual, every sane person knows today's religions. Unless they want to be hypocritical.

Then I guess you would need to conclude that I am insane since I do not appear to be one of those "every sane person" who "knows today's religions".

Do note the definition of "religion", as given by wiki:

Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Wiki

Would you agree that since wiki has it that since "there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion", therefore, wiki too is not one of those "every sane person" who "knows today's religions", and is therefore insane like I am?

gensteejay:
I don't agree with your convictions on religions, especially about the Bible and Christianity in general. And my conclusion is based on research -- just like my conclusions on religion is also based on years of research. So this has nothing with belief, faith, and the likes.

There is absolutely no reason why you must agree with my "convictions". In fact, I doubt you know my "convictions", so how could you possibly agree or disagree? Are you mistaking me for some sort of messiah, or assuming my so called "convictions" are the whole truth? I, personally, hope I am not that arrogant, or stupid, as the case may be and in my opinion. The important thing is that you do research and develop convictions of your own, I would think.

That said, the parenthesis, are to denote that I haven't a clue what you mean by "my convictions" and I honestly didn't know I had any. So please enlighten me. I'd be very interested in knowing what "convictions" of mine you disagree with, and why, because it just might be that my "convictions" are wrong and you would be helping me find the right "convictions". I am most grateful in advance.

gensteejay:
That's scepticism. If that's a religion, can you tell us the god(s), holy book, tenets of worship of scepticism?

The tenets of a sceptic is just about every single word, knowledge, experience, understanding, holy book, god etc the sceptic can lay hands on, which will lead to the sceptic "worshipping" as he or she sees fit.

I, for instance, worship God by doing God's will, which to me is, love my neighbours, and do unto others as I will have them do unto me (with a caveat), to forgive those who trespasses against me so that my trespasses can be forgiven, to feed the poor and to “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth and subdue it. To rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” ^Ref

tintingz:
Can you define religion?

Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Wiki

Ihedinobi3:
How can the Bible say explicitly that the earth became a chaotic ruin and you argue that it didn't?

Simply because the Bible does not say explicitly or in any other way that the earth became a chaotic ruin, and neither have you shown how you have come to conclude it does after saying it does on a public forum!

Do note that if you had said this in the privacy of your home, buda will not come into your house and challenge you about it. You said it on a public forum so, here we are.

gensteejay:
Even though I don't agree with your convictions about religion and some related issues, your posts are usually interesting and sometimes intriguing.

Why is your moniker, budaatum, a portmanteau word formed from Buddha and Atum, 2 different gods from 2 different cultures? Hope you won't find my comment too inquisitive.

Of course you may ask. And may I congratulate you even, on being the first to be so inquisitive.

The two names say "One does not live by bread alone", and are to show two bakers that I patronized at the time, Buddha to show my path and method of seeking - mine being the Zen path which was where I was when I chose it sometime in the 90s; and Atum, being the first and most important Ancient Egyptian god to be worshipped; to show origin, which is similar to "out of Egypt I called my Son" as stated first in Hosea 11:1 and repeated in Matthew 2:13-15, and which may refer to Moses freeing the Israelites from Egypt, if one wished to consider it's (a Christian may say) spiritual meaning.

You must not "agree with my convictions" by the way, unless you have researched them for yourself and found them agreeable, if not, they are not convictions worth you agreeing with. Even after you have researched them for yourself and if you find them agreeable, then you still will not be agreeing with 'my' convictions, because by doing your own research and finding them agreeable, they are your own convictions now. Basically, if you "believe" a single word I say without researching and checking so you know for yourself, I have misled you and failed.

tintingz:
Oga, we're talking about enlightenment here.

Questioning and doubting religious dogmas actually led to enlightenment not religion per se.

And I'm saying, "Questioning and doubting religious dogmas" itself can be the religion of some people.

Or am I not "talking" too?

tintingz:
Allah the "most intelligent, most merciful, most wise" said menstruation is "harmful or impure" in (Quran 2:222).

One of my "dogmas", so to speak, is not to bear false witness. Just so you know.

Below is the text you mentioned.

And they ask you about menstruation. Say, "It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves."

From the above, can you in all honesty, claim "Allah the "most intelligent, most merciful, most wise" said"?

Is it not more accurate to say, "it is written that the Angel Gabriel said to the Prophet Mohammed ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-ʿala āli-hi wa-sallam, who wrote down what he was told and you now read"?

Where then did you get "Allah the "most intelligent, most merciful, most wise said", when that "Allah the "most intelligent, most merciful, most wise" did not even say any such thing to he whom we say ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-ʿala āli-hi wa-sallam?

Now, that aside. You yourself said you "simply take Allah's words in the Qur'an". And while I could go on and argue with you that that is not true, and claim that what you do is, 'take what the Prophet wrote down as given to him by the Angel of God and which you now read in the Qur'an', still, the Surah you "simply took" does not say "menstruation is "harmful or impure""! Or does it and I misunderstand? Which makes me want to say, perhaps you truly, "don't care about people's interpretations, it's meaningless", but you seem to appear to be quick to place much value in your own interpretation which you assume means what you understand to be written! Or does the Surah you quoted not say, or mean, if you'd have it, "simply" that, "you should not have sex with a woman while she is menstruating", tintingz?

You then ask the strawman question if I "Can tell you why an intelligent all-knowing God will make something impure or harmful exist in his creation, any logical reasons?" To wit, the answer is no intelligent all-knowing God made anything impure or harmful exist in his creation! Menstruation is after all not "harmful and impure". And if you had trully bothered to "simply take Allah's words in the Qur'an" as you say you do, you would have taken the simple word "Say", as it appears in the Surah, and understood that the Surah you mentioned was what the Prophet was told to tell you if you asked about menstruation, and whatever the real reason might have been was not even divulged to the Prophet himself! That said, I can sort of give you a reason, from my own understanding though, so be warned.

First, sex with a menstruating woman is inconsiderate of you. The poor woman is bleeding and likely in pain and all you're thinking of is screwing her! It makes you sound selfish! Then there's the issue of it being pointless, she's after all not going to get pregnant. And it's messy. That's three, what I'd consider, good enough reasons for you to not have sex with a menstruating woman and consider it to be "harmful" and "unpurified", if you are not considerate enough not to, don't you think?

tintingz:
I'm confused on your claims in that thread, can you just give a straight forward answer here, do you subscribe to the Christian deity and dogmas?

I do apologise for your confusion tintingz, you will have to find it in you to forgive me because we are discussing a very complex Quran here and if you find common ordinary me confusing how much moreso should it be expected that you would find the Quran confusing?

Be that as it is, the deity I subscribe to is called God, the same God that some call Allah, amongst God's numerous other names - there is after all no other God but God regardless the name one choses. And my "dogma", if that's what you wish to call it, is in my signature, though do not expect me to be dogmatic since I try not to be.

I know you asked for straight forward, but you should not expect straightforward at this rather complex and advanced level.

tintingz:
Religion is about faith(just accept a situation as it is without questioning). So I don't think religion base on faith evolve to enlightenment per se, it's actually doubting and questioning these beliefs that evolve to enlightenment.

Please do speak for yourself!

Is it not true that religion for some is, pack bombs on the body and blow innocent people up? Is it not true that religion for some is, love your neighbour?

If the above are both valid, and let me know if they are not please, then why can religion for some not be, "do not accept any crap unless you have diligently and honestly checked for yourself?"

tintingz:
I think religious skepticism results/evolve to enlightenment.

It indeed does. One must check all things diligently. In fact, so diligently that you should read here what buda says when Moses and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel are going up the mountain and dare to suggest to buda to "wait at the bottom"!

Ihedinobi3:
Budaatum, I am not sure what you want me to say to you, but you and I are not the same or of a feather. My attitude to the Bible is different from yours. I don't tell the Bible what to say, as apparently you like to do. So, we will never quite see eye to eye on biblical matters.

As far as this particular subject we're discussing goes, "tohu wa bhohu" is a phrase that means "in a chaotic ruin" or, literally "ruined and a chaos". The Bible was not written in English.

You do not have to say anything to me! Nor do I care about your feathers! Just face the facts, and desist, if you can, with your "don't tell the Bible what to do", while that is precisely what you are doing on a public forum where, if I see you do it, I, will, respond with the facts so as not to allow you to lead those who may happen on what you have written and be led astray!

Now.

Tohu wa-bohu (תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ), is a Biblical Hebrew phrase found in the Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1:2) that describes the condition of the earth as "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and immediately precedes the creation of light in Genesis 1:3 where it is written, And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

You may chose to believe what you may, but nowhere does it say "God created the earth and ruined it!" And if you insist, then show me where it is said so that my error may be corrected and I, your neighbour, do not end up in hell!

Shepherd00:
Okay then.

I'd say the world will be far a better place with Christianity practiced as stipulated by The Lord Jesus.

Reasons being that Christianity hurts no one.

If we love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and love our neighbors and do to them as we'd want them do to us, what can go wrong in a society like that?

Quite a lot can go wrong, I dare say! To begin with, we can hardly agree what is "stipulated by The Lord Jesus" as is obvious by the number of times supposed "Christians" attack one another on this forum and claim their version is the only correct version!

And secondly, who's to say that what one wants done unto one is what another wants done unto them? Is that not the judging of another's want by one's own desires?

But I would expect that you would insist that Jesus did say "[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A31&version=NIV]Do[/url] unto others as you would have them do unto you", and “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them”, and you might even mention the Mosaic precedent that states that “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD” And if I say the Holy Spirit upgraded that to knowledge in me, I know you would say "satanic slurs buda", and yet insist that your belief in the verses I quoted for you still stands despite the fact that in the very same breathe you would have contravened those verses in which you no doubt believe!

Still yet would I admit and agree with you that if we truly did understand what religion teaches us, the world will indeed be a much better place.

Shepherd00:
This issue has been treated over and over again here. You believe what you believe, go on.

See. As if on cue. And before I'd finished mine above!

Please know that I admire your probing questions. That thread was not your first of you probing me and I dutily responded in both. But if you do not consider my answers as given, then I am the fool who knows not what to do with pearls, and honestly speaking, that would be me wasting the blood of my Messiah and Lord Jesus Christ and crucifying him instead, which I did not do even when I was an atheist and contrary to what you believe about me despite the evidence being in my numerous posts for you to read and know.