I am opening this thread to gauge your responses to the command to “love your neighbour”. What gave rise to this is a post made by Martian, that Nairaland’s most committed materialist once dismissed by Jewitemi as possessing a “fossilised paradigmal mindset”.

Here is the post:

The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Once again, the "greatest man" who ever lived sounds like a fool.

Number 1. Love the person in the mirror and whoever else deserves it.
Number 2. You don't have to love your neighbor, just respect and tolerate them no matter your differences. If they are a nuisance,make it known that they are making life uncomfortable for you.
Number 3 Respect your society as long as there is a rule of law.
\
Nuber 4. Who the f#ck is the Lord his God? This isn't Israel.

In my opinion, the love your neighbour thesis is both reasonable and practical. But what do you think? Is Martian’s antithesis reasonable – is his write-up really antithetical to Jesus' statement?

@Martian: What do you mean by loving only those who deserve to be loved? In [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:29-37&version=NIV1984]the parable of the good Samaritan[/url], for instance, did the injured man deserve to be loved or not?

@All: What does the command to love your neighbour mean to you? Do you think it is reasonable and practical?

With Love comes respect, tolerance and empathy. Without these, there would be no society and no goal of perfection.

So Jesus is right.

You see, I have often warned Martian about allowing the excess of atheistic enthusiasm to lead to absolutely unnecessary, and even ridiculous statements. The adjuration to love our neighbour, especially as elucidated within the parable of the good samaritan, cannot be quarreled with. It is simple, clear, practical and would make for a better world. No remotely sane person could dispute this.

Now, for someone to declare that Jesus sounds like a fool, for simply adjuring people towards love, I have to say ranks as perhaps the daftest, hollowest, shallowest, silliest comment ever made on this forum and is nothing but the result of the excess of puerile atheistic enthusiasm.

Such a person surely could not be a day over 16 years of age.

Lol

People should realise that every law or rule has an exception.

I hope a sadomasochist doesnt love you like he/she loves his/her tortured self.

THE VERY RICH MAN WANT US DEAD

No matter how hard people deviate from the truth, there are indication that Government is behind Boko Haram.... El-Rufai.

1. Why is Kabiru Sokoto the so called mastermind bomber of Madalla Christmas day bomb attacked in Niger State is not yet on trial?

2. What about the Abu Qaqa, SSS claimed to have arrested?

3. Mr. John that was caught with grenades, AK47 and ammunition attempted to attack a Ministerial briefing at Radio House Abuja. Where is he now?

4. An SSS operative announced the name Emmanuel who was also arrestted in Gombe State attempted to bomb a Church. Where is he?

5. The former three members of a Church in Plateau who were apprehended by security after bombing a Church in Jos. Where are they?

6. An Igbo man who said to have converted to Islam, who was arrested by security as a master mind bomber of Igbo meeting in Adamawa State. Have you heald anything about him?

7. A man non-Muslim, but dressed in white Jallabiyah arrested in Bayelsa, attemting to bomb a Church months ago. Where is he?

8. Now it is being alleged that a John Odey was apprehended as the master mind of the Sunday's Zaria bombings. Will he vanish into thin air too?

Are all these facts or fictions? Unless the authorities explain these excessive coincidences, the FGN will remain the number one suspect behind these bombing. I have said my bit..... Malam Nasiru Ahmed El-Rufai on his twitter page @elrufai

.... Remember how many times President Jonathan claimed that he knows the people behind these bombing and Boko Haram. On 1st October, 2010 golden jubilee bomb attacked in Abuja, Mr. President was the first Nigerian that boldly mention that he knows the people behind the attacked which was claimed responsibility by MEND militant, that led to argumentation between the Government and the Militant Group, in which today Herry Okahi s heading captive, yet no prosecution. Wise up nigerians. Lets stop killing ourselves in the name of religion.

MyJoe: I am opening this thread to gauge your responses to the command to “love your neighbour”. What gave rise to this is a post made by Martian, that Nairaland’s most committed materialist once dismissed by Jewitemi as possessing a “fossilised paradigmal mindset”.

I'll rather have that mindset than Jenwitemi's mindset influence by "current data" that's hidden from "mainstream" science and the conspiracies involving Hollywood and thoe secrets. And it's all taking place in "simulated 3D holographic universe". lol C'mon!!

MyJoe: @Martian: What do you mean by loving only those who deserve to be loved? In [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:29-37&version=NIV1984]the parable of the good Samaritan[/url], for instance, did the injured man deserve to be loved or not?

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins[a] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

What does love have to do with this story? The Samaritan simply had sympathy or/and empathy for the injured man. He also had the means(silver coins) to take the man to an inn and have him cared for.The good Samaritan was simply a man of means who helped somebody and can be said to be a philantrophist. Now, do you mean to assert that people weren't empathetic before the story of jesus?
As for the priest and the levite. Maybe they were just wary of being set up. maybe they didn't have the means.
You don't have to love someone to help them, so why elevate a simple story of philantrophy and empathy into about how to behave at all times?

So no, the man didn't dererve to be loved, but he needed help and men help themselves when they can. There is nothing trancendental about it.

Martian:

I'll rather have that mindset than Jenwitemi's mindset influence by "current data" that's hidden from "mainstream" science and the conspiracies involving Hollywood and thoe secrets. And it's all taking place in "simulated 3D holographic universe". lol C'mon!!



29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins[a] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

What does love have to do with this story? The Samaritan simply had sympathy or/and empathy for the injured man. He also had the means(silver coins) to take the man to an inn and have him cared for.The good Samaritan was simply a man of means who helped somebody and can be said to be a philantrophist. Now, do you mean to assert that people weren't empathetic before the story of jesus?
As for the priest and the levite. Maybe they were just wary of being set up. maybe they didn't have the means.
You don't have to love someone to help them, so why elevate a simple story of philantrophy and empathy into about how to behave at all times?

So no, the man didn't dererve to be loved, but he needed help and men help themselves when they can. There is nothing trancendental about it.

So in your mind, the charitable love preached in scripture is something altogether different from the notion of empathy?

My word.

Deep Sight:
You see, I have often warned Martian about allowing the excess of atheistic enthusiasm to lead to absolutely unnecessary, and even ridiculous statements. The adjuration to love our neighbour, especially as elucidated within the parable of the good samaritan, cannot be quarreled with. It is simple, clear, practical and would make for a better world. No remotely sane person could dispute this.

Martian appreciates it hen you keep your warnings to yourself. Anyway, reality has proven over time that humans have different opinions and the world is not a Utopia where you can love everybody. Look at Nigeria and tell me you love the Boko Haram and the likes. Even if you love them, what makes you think they will love you?
The most you can do is tolerate and respect their ideologies and philosophies. Humans are not the same, so ideas won't be the same. Jesus' world is an Utopia that doesn't exist and that can never exist. Not with the way the earth is.

Deep Sight:
Now, for someone to declare that Jesus sounds like a fool, for simply adjuring people towards love, I have to say ranks as perhaps the daftest, hollowest, shallowest, silliest comment ever made on this forum and is nothing but the result of the excess of puerile atheistic enthusiasm.
Such a person surely could not be a day over 16 years of age.

Yes, Jesus was a fool. "turn the other cheek". That worked well when it was used on the plantations of the new world.
"turn the other cheek" and "love your neighbor" when he just tried to kill you. All for some reward you will get AFTER you die.


That's the pacifist ideology that enabled imperialism. That's the pacifist ideology that keeps people docile and dependent on "god". That's the pacifist ideology that enables them to think "leave it to god" while things rot.

Deep Sight:

So in your mind, the charitable love preached in scripture is something altogether different from the notion of empathy?

My word.

I can have empathy without loving the person and charity is not exclusive to "scriptures". There is nothing wrong with the story, it's just the pedestal his teachings are placed on when they are just ordinary human actions that are practiced with or without "divine" teachings.

Martian:

I can have empathy without loving the person.

I did mention the sort of love that is preached in religion, in scripture/ That is not romantic love. It is rooted in common human empathy.

You would have recognized how nonsensical your position is if only you had bothered to think about the orignal connotation and meaning of the word translated as love, that Jesus is said to have used in the gospel when he taught that. Then you would see that there is no way you can divorce that from empathy. But you are far too eager to insult the man such that you call him a fool for advocating human love and brotherhood. Abeg, think before you type joor.

At all events, you have no basis for calling a man a fool on account that he urged humans to practice charitable love. The fact that the world is unyieldingly horrible does not make that a foolish teaching. Its nonsensical for you to brand him a fool specifically for teaching love. Absolutely nonsensical.

Martian:

I can have empathy without loving the person and charity is not exclusive to "scriptures". There is nothing wrong with the story, it's just the pedestal his teachings are placed on when they are just ordinary human actions that are practiced with or without "divine" teachings.

So where does the man become foolish in this?

Deep Sight:
I did mention the sort of love that is preached in religion, in scripture/ That is not romantic love. It is rooted in common human empathy.

Well I don't subscribe to the sort of love preached in religion so love has nothin to do with empathy in my opinion.

Deep Sight:
You would have recognized how nonsensical your position is if only you had bothered to think about the orignal connotation and meaning of the word translated as love, that Jesus is said to have used in the gospel when he taught that.

And what is "YOUR OPINION" about the original connotation and meaning of the word "traslated" or is it "transliterated" as love?

Deep Sight:
At all events, you have no basis for calling a man a fool on account that he urged humans to practice charitable love.

I didn't call him a fool for advocating charity, I call him a fool for saying "love your neighboras yourself". Reality says otherwise and reality is objective. Christianity as a whole is a distortion of reality. From the original sin that damns your human nature before your were born, to the love that includes eternal torture from an omniscience god, to the naive advice to "love your neighbor".

Reality agrees with me, jesus is a fool because yo can't love your neigbor as yourself. Tolerance and respect do not require love.

Deep Sight:
The fact that the world is unyieldingly horrible does not make that a foolish teaching. Its nonsensical for you to brand him a fool specifically for teaching love. Absolutely nonsensical.

It's nonsensical to follow impractical teachings and that's the bane of every ideology that claims infalliblity. Love your neighbor but he will kill you.

Deep Sight:

So where does the man become foolish in this?

Look above.

Martian:
As for the priest and the levite. Maybe they were just wary of being set up. maybe they didn't have the means.

Yes. . . . or maybe they just didn't care. Which makes the commandment to love (call it reminder, if you like,) necessary, wouldn't you say?

You don't have to love someone to help them, so why elevate a simple story of philantrophy and empathy into about how to behave at all times?

Does everyone behave this way? Some people are empathetic by nature and will abandon their own pursuit to help others. Others would rather keep a loaf of bread and watch if spoil than give it to a starving kid. It can be argued that it just comes down to temperament, as described by the psychologists. If everyone took Jesus' command to heart then, can they possibly be led astray by it?

So no, the man didn't dererve to be loved, but he needed help and men help themselves when they can. There is nothing trancendental about it.

Some men help others when they can. That is not far from the love Jesus preached. Charity.

MyJoe:
Yes. . . . or maybe they just didn't care. Which makes the commandment to love (call it reminder, if you like,) necessary, wouldn't you say?

Ok.

MyJoe:
Does everyone behave this way? Some people are empathetic by nature and will abandon their own pursuit to help others. Others would rather keep a loaf of bread and watch if spoil than give it to a starving kid. It can be argued that it just comes down to temperament, as described by the psychologists.If everyone took Jesus' command to heart then, can they possibly be led astray by it?

The problem is jesus' advice is not consistent with reality. It's impossible to love your neighbor as yourself or sometimes even love her at all. Further more, the same person yapping about "love" also has this to say.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”

The guy just sounds like an egomaniacal spiritual leader. (OYEDEPO) Since spirituality is all about psychological placebo, all spritual leaders do is tell their followers platitudes and common sense knowledge that's not exclusive to them. So the jesus character said some sensible things, a lot of platitudes and then performed "miracles" like the MOGs do nowadays.

Martian:

Well I don't subscribe to the sort of love preached in religion so love has nothin to do with empathy in my opinion.

Charity has everything to do with empathy, and charity is the sort of love that Jesus preached. . . for which you call him a fool. . .

And what is "YOUR OPINION" about the original connotation and meaning of the word "traslated" or is it "transliterated" as love?

Do you want me to do your homework for you? ? ? YOU were the one who boldly quoted that verse and concluded that Jesus' statement sounded foolish. . .YOU ought to have done your research before blabbering off about Jesus being a fool for that - even though a normal person should not need research to know about that meaning of the original word used. . . .

I didn't call him a fool for advocating charity, I call him a fool for saying "love your neighboras yourself".

What is wrong with saying "Love your neighbour as yourself"? Is it not consistent with the idea that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated? And when we consider that charitable love is what is being referred to - the very same empathy that you comically seek to claim is a different thing - then is it not a lofty ideal to aspire to - to deal charitably with others in the same measure as we would with our very selves? ? ?

Sir, you have NO POINT. Give it up already.

Martian:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”

If I was christian, I would probably argue that here, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in terms of teh extent to which a believer must go for the gospel. However since I am not a christian let me just openly admit that I do not understand this hard saying.

If there are any bible teachers in the house, please come and explain this hard saying for us.

Deep Sight:
Charity has everything to do with empathy, and charity is the sort of love that Jesus preached. . . for which you call him a fool. . .

The good samaritan story is about charity and I never criticized that in the first place. The OP presented it as an example of "love", and I called it an act of empathy by someone with means. I called him a fool because of this quote below and what he calle "the greatest commandments".

The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

so what's so profound about this that you're foaming at the mouth to defend something you allegedly don't believe in?
Did people practice charity before jesus' story or is charity so rare that only christians practice it? The sayings attibuted to him are really not unique but when attributed to him, they suddenly become "deep" as if they were original thoughts.

And the "most important one" is meaningless garbage and you agree because if you didn't you would be a christian.

Deep Sight:
What is wrong with saying "Love your neighbour as yourself"? Is it not consistent with the idea that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated? And when we consider that charitable love is what is being referred to - the very same empathy that you comically seek to claim is a different thing - then is it not a lofty ideal to aspire to - to deal charitably with others in the same measure as we would with our very selves? ? ?
Sir, you have NO POINT. Give it up already.

These are my points to counter his "greatest commandments".

Number 1. Love the person in the mirror and whoever else deserves it.
Number 2. You don't have to love your neighbor, just respect and tolerate them no matter your differences. If they are a nuisance,make it known that they are making life uncomfortable for you.
Number 3 Respect your society as long as there is a rule of law.

Martian:

These are my points to counter his "greatest commandments".

Number 1. Love the person in the mirror and whoever else deserves it.

Here, the innate poverty and inferiority of your doctrine is manifest: and it is alarming that you do not see it; for you should first ask yourself who indeed is deserving of love: and whether or not it is the case that genuine love is oft properly given without being specifically earned.

Again, the scandalous inferiority of this position is revealed in its first canon: love the person in the mirror: whilst self-love is natural, rendering it the fundamental and core premise of your doctrine unviels one thing and one thing only: selfishness.

In your canon, there would be no such thing as self-sacrifice for example: a thing which many humans have risen to not only for their loved ones, but even for their countries in time of war: man have died to save complete strangers.

If you cannoy see how nobility rests in this: and how far loftier it is than your selfish materialistic dogma, then of course, you should remain exactly where you are: in the depth of poverty stricken materialistic selfishness - a pathethic excuse for a creed for any human being worthy of the name.

Here, the innate poverty and inferiority of your doctrine is manifest: and it is alarming that you do not see it; for you should first ask yourself who indeed is deserving of love: and whether or not it is the case that genuine love is oft properly given without being specifically earned.

Again, the scandalous inferiority of your position is revealed in its first canon: love the person in the mirror: whilst self-love is natural, rendering it the fundamental and core premise of your doctrine unviels one thing and one thing only: selfishness.

In your canon, there would be no such thing as self-sacrifice for example: a thing which many humans have risen to not only for their loved ones, but even for their countries in time of war: men have died to save complete strangers.

If you cannot see how nobility rests in this: and how far loftier it is than your selfish materialistic dogma, then of course, you should remain exactly where you are: in the depth of poverty stricken materialistic selfishness - a pathethic excuse for a creed for any human being worthy of the name.

You should go to a quiet room and meditate on these two words: Nobility and Selfishness.

I will also task you to make a distinction between the higher and the lower. Though of cousre, I am hoping for too much from a materialist.

Deep Sight:
Here, the innate poverty and inferiority of your doctrine is manifest: and it is alarming that you do not see it; for you should first ask yourself who indeed is deserving of love: and whether or not it is the case that genuine love is oft properly given without being specifically earned.

Innate poverty? Because I said love yourself and whoever deserves it? I'm already ahead of you and I've asked myself who is "deserving" of love. And if I think you don't deserve it, then you don't.

Deep Sight:
Again, the scandalous inferiority of this position is revealed in its first canon: love the person in the mirror: whilst self-love is natural, rendering it the fundamental and core premise of your doctrine unviels one thing and one thing only: selfishness.

I am very selfish. Matter of fact, I pursue my own self interest while making sure I don't trample on others and stay within societal laws. I am a selfish individual. I am an individual and my only obligation is to myself and whoever I choose to associate with.No sarcasm.

Deep Sight:
In your canon, there would be no such thing as self-sacrifice for example: a thing which many humans have risen to not only for their loved ones, but even for their countries in time of war: man have died to save complete strangers.

Under every "sacrificial" act is a motivation. And that motivation is still "self interest". Even acts of charity can be traced back to the feelings they give the person.
Humans rise for their loved ones because of their "self interest" not to lose the loved one.
Humans have died for their countries in times of war in order to protect their "self interest". I've been to war,and it was "self interest" every single time I stepped into that war zone.

Deep Sight:
If you cannoy see how nobility rests in this: and how far loftier it is than your selfish materialistic dogma, then of course, you should remain exactly where you are: in the depth of poverty stricken materialistic selfishness - a pathethic excuse for a creed for any human being worthy of the name.

Nothing loftier or more noble than pursuing your goals and self interest while respecting others right to pursue theirs.
If it's in my self interest to help you, I will, if not, I won't. You are the same way but the difference is, you won't admit it. Heck, the whole world works like this.

Deep Sight:
I will also task you to make a distinction between the higher and the lower. Though of cousre, I am hoping for too much from a materialist.

And i guess the materialist is the "lower" lol

Deep Sight:

If I was christian, I would probably argue that here, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in terms of teh extent to which a believer must go for the gospel. However since I am not a christian let me just openly admit that I do not understand this hard saying.

If there are any bible teachers in the house, please come and explain this hard saying for us.

I've seen an alternative "explanation" for this which suggests that he was talking about sacrifice and persecution (if I remember correctly).

Makes me wonder.

jayriginal:

I've seen an alternative "explanation" for this which suggests that he was talking about sacrifice and persecution (if I remember correctly).

Makes me wonder.

And the next person will have a different "explanation" to explain the "explanation" of the metaphor.............or is it literal?

@ martian.
Martian, martian, martian.
I dont usually love filty talks.
I dont know u, ur occupation or the environment u come from, ur family background, ur home front, the neighborhood u are currently leaving. However, i know that all this factors can influence the way one talks and reasons. Even once crowd.
However, i wish to drop some lines.
Firstly, there are 4 kinds of love, (the word love has 4 conotations).
1. Agape. Love base on Principle
of good toward others.
2. Philia. Love that exist among family members.
3. Erros. Love due to sexual attraction. Sexual love.
4. ?? This love appeals to jealousy and greed.
That having been said.

Love and hate comes from the heart. Loving ur neighbor as ur self has to do with what u are thinking about ur neighbor. after thinking comes actions.
He was saying that for u to be clean in and out befor God what u think about ur neighbor should be as good as what u think about ur self.
If u will not think of spoiling ur property neither should ur think of such for others.
What u will want others to do to u do ye also to others. Golden rule.
Martian, u have limited knowledge. maybe that is why u open ur mouth so wide. But if he was to address this issue now he will have seen throw ur limited knowledge and ask for 4giveness for u.
Concerning the other issue of loving father and mother, he was only saying that the act of following him will not always be met with approval by close relatives, that if u leave following him for them, then u are not worthy of him. That is, expect persecution from relations for his sake. Who else will complain most about ur actions.
I believe u have made an ignorant mistake due to pride.
This should rather let u to hence really watch ur self. (Mind)

^^^ WORD! Expressed with beautiful and incisive simplicity!

But those who have no ears, will NOT hear.

^^^^

WORD?? lmao. That crap wasn't even worth a reply.

^^^ Oh, no, I did not expect that you would think so. I wonder if you think all who have responded to you thought your ramblings here wortrh anything though. Pity.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Oh, no, I did not expect that you would think so. I wonder if you think all who have responded to you thought your ramblings here wortrh anything though. Pity.

But you spend your time replying even though the thread wasn't started by you. lol pity

^^^ In some distorted hope to help you see how outrageous it is to describe charitable teachings as those of a fool.

Enjoy sha. I leave you with that which I have always said to you: do not let unnecessarily excessive atheistic enthusiasm drive you to ridiculous statements. Shalom.

Deep Sight:
^^^ In some distorted hope to help you see how outrageous it is to describe charitable teachings as those of a fool.

I already wrote the reason I called him a fool and it wasn't because of teachings about charity(good samaritan). I criticized the "greatest commandments" but you're are fixated on the charity part.

Deep Sight:
Enjoy sha. I leave you with that which I have always said to you: do not let unnecessarily excessive atheistic enthusiasm drive you to ridiculous statements. Shalom.

And don't let your ignorant superstitions cause you to start threads about aliens, water crystals and unembodied minds creating universes. But you will continue, because it's in your "self interest" to attempt to articulate your "spirituality" especially in an environment like Nigeria's. Shalom and Mazel Tov!