I’d love to, and thanks for the opportunity. If we look at humans the same way we do any other species, then we can plainly see a collection of concious beings with the most capacity for either ourselves, or everything else. I think therefore the less barbaric or more righteous way to live would be to dismiss yourself; to set yourself aside, so to speak. Because we’re the only living things to be able to even go as far as to suffer to strive to do so. Please check out my other few posts regarding the same topic as further evidence.

Truth to me is what reality consists of, despite anyway mankind has presently organized itself and manipulated its environment.

And ultimately what I’m trying to say here, is that ironically, the people that would be seeing the psychology and sociology within religion, by seeing the words and the logic they connotate as nothing but that—aren’t. Because again ironically, the people that see the value and potential to it, aren’t teaching along with they way people like even Jesus advocated for it to be taught: to never see anything man made as unquestionably true. To see things as true, of course, but never where it’s no longer up for question, and that it’s no longer capable of error.

Obviously a big claim regarding Jesus, but it makes perfect sense if you consider the extent “oath-taking”—I like to call it—divides us. Whether it be the division between nations all the way down to things like racism or slander and collective hate. And if you consider the potential of the opposite, of the masses being taught to never be lead to feel as though they would kill, harm, hate, or be iniquitous in general for the sake of any man made thing—or to always be re-examining their life as Socrates put it, then I can’t help but to think this would undoubtedly hold the most potential for unity, in contrast to any amount of the opposite.

Wow, I’m speechless, this is fantastic. Genuinely, thanks for taking the time to write this up, it makes me feel fully understood, and “healing begins when you begin to feel heard.” So thanks for that honestly.

I’ve been talking to a lot of pastors about this for the past few years, so I guess I end up wrongly assuming that people will understand things like the “skin and wine” reference I guess you can say, for example.

It’s seeing selflessness and our capacity for it from a more reasonable point of view, because it’s reason and logic that serves as the basis of selflessness.

Without us, there is no potential for selflessness to the extent we can choose to even suffer for it; not to mention collectively, and the extent that could potentially benefit everything else in the process.

Selflessness is the meaning; God or not.

Why am I wrong?

I think to make life about peace for the sake of myself would to only confine all the potential that the opposite would have to offer otherwise—to myself, like most people. Vanity for the sake of everything else is the only desire worth seeking, because it’s the only one that doesn’t end in inevitable disappointment, due to all desire for oneself being temporary, and selflessness the only one that holds the potential of even lasting forever.

The most logical explanation is to strive to be as selfless as possible; God or not.

Selflessness is the most logical explanation; God or not.

Please consider Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction—Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, The Kingdom of God is Within You.

The most logical explanation would be to be able to acknowledge any of our potentially most barbaric desires or behaviors, and even go as far as to suffer to abstain from them, for a purpose outside of ourselves; God or not.

The most logical explanation is to strive to be as selfless as possible.

Selflessness is the meaning; God or not.

Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction—Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, The Kingdom of God is Within You.

My point exactly.

Oh I’m sorry. What about what I’ve said is so unclear to you exactly?

Please dont see this as a personal attack towards you by any means, I’m only using our encounter and what I ended up saying to speak out about supposition now. I’m worried ultimately about the extent the idea may be potentially hindering knowledge and the consideration of foreign influences, and it’s difficult for me to think of anything worse.

I stated in the comment that I’m linking what Socrates had to say and the story of Jonah, and what Jesus really meant when he referenced it.

It’s looking at religion from a philosophical point of view.

There’s a bad habit on this platform of disagreeing and down voting, without stating specifically as to why. Wouldn’t it make more sense to share why I’m wrong? Because I’m not necessarily claiming I’m absolutely right, but I’m also not saying I’m wrong either—despite being absolutely okay with being wrong, because then I’ve only have found what’s right.

Please tell me why I’m wrong so I can delete the post and we can all move on too what is right.