'Love Your Enemies' & Judgment Day

[Prismatic567]

In the Gospels of the NT, there is an overriding* pacifist maxim, i.e.
"love your enemies" together with loving everything else.

*"love your enemies" has to be overriding else the Christian God would appear to be contradictory. An omni-potent and all powerful God cannot be contradictory.

In accordance to the doctrine of Christianity per the Gospels,
what do think is likely to happen on Judgment Day to those Christians who had killed their enemies.

I anticipate the following would happen when a Christian who had killed his enemies meet God and Jesus on Judgment Day.

God [& Jesus] to Christian: WTF, I commanded you to love your enemies not kill them, but you defy our commands and kill your enemies.

Christian: (With blah, blah, pleadings), I had to kill my enemies for XYZ reasons .

God [& Jesus]: I am omniscient and I knew in your heart why you'd killed your enemies. The judgment on you is as follow; .....................

It is a fact Christians would have killed for XYZ reasons.
God being merciful & compassionate whilst omniscient would already knew the reasons why the various sinful Christians had killed their enemies for various reasons.

Logically [according the said doctrines], those who killed their enemy without good and justifiable reasons would be condemned to Hell immediately.
Those who had killed their enemies due to self-defense, officially in a war, unpremeditated reasons and asked for forgiveness would receive lesser punishments and depending on the severity may still have a chance to go to heaven.

Agree/Disagree?
Your view?

[Serendipper]

Loving enemies is actually an expression of a desire to punish enemies.

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

So that's one thing.

Another is Matthew 5, the beatitudes:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

So we love enemies, not for its own sake, but to get a reward which is a feeling of superiority as being better than enemies, publicans, and others. That doesn't seem so virtuous to me. I'd be more impressed if someone genuinely wanted to help their enemies by improving them and possibly winning them as friends.

But christianity is really very simian, petty, and childish which I think is evidence of who created it (hint: ancient dumb desert people). But there are some smart bits, mainly those shoehorned in later, such as the story of the woman caught in adultery where Jesus asks the one without sin to cast the first stone at her.

what do think is likely to happen on Judgment Day to those Christians who had killed their enemies.

All sins are covered by the blood of jesus. Christians do not stand before the judgement; it's what you're saved from. Saved is past tense; it cannot be undone. Some sects believe one can backslide, but the bible is fairly clear about things like predestination.

The endtime scenario goes like this:

Jesus returns in the clouds of glory summoning the dead in Christ to rise first, receiving new bodies, and those who are alive will be caught-up next, also getting new bodies. Who is left is judged and then everyone on earth, along with the earth, will be destroyed making room for a new heaven and earth.

But the idea of Christians being judged is in no way consistent with any branch of Christianity, except the purgatory of Catholicism, which I think even then only applies to those who die before Christ returns because it's in the interim period that the supposed purgatory exists and actually precedes judgement. (Purgatory is a concoction of the church to make money.)

[Karpel Tunnel]

In the Gospels of the NT, there is an overriding* pacifist maxim, i.e.
"love your enemies" together with loving everything else.

*"love your enemies" has to be overriding else the Christian God would appear to be contradictory. An omni-potent and all powerful God cannot be contradictory.

One can say that anything attributed to God in the Bible as a whole overrides everything else, otherwise the Christian God would appear contradictory. So statements indicating that Jews should kill their enemies or an eye for an eye or whatever else could be seen to override the love of enemies.

To sort out the contradictions one must think one has a religious authority one trusts: a priest, a church, scriptural analysis, messages from God, divine inspiration...something that allows you to know. Religious people can do this, without contradiction. Outsiders cannot. The religoius people may well have chosen the wrong authority. All religious authorities may be delusional. God may not exist. But it makes sense for a religious person to believe they can sort these things out since they believe in religious authorities. Atheists do not.

In accordance to the doctrine of Christianity per the Gospels,
what do think is likely to happen on Judgment Day to those Christians who had killed their enemies.

I anticipate the following would happen when a Christian who had killed his enemies meet God and Jesus on Judgment Day.

God [& Jesus] to Christian: WTF, I commanded you to love your enemies not kill them, but you defy our commands and kill your enemies.

Christian: (With blah, blah, pleadings), I had to kill my enemies for XYZ reasons .

God [& Jesus]: I am omniscient and I knew in your heart why you'd killed your enemies. The judgment on you is as follow; .....................

Seriously this is ridiculous. There are even religoius experts - priests, believers of all kinds, monks nuns,w ho would hesitate to say what will happen on judgment day.

It is a fact Christians would have killed for XYZ reasons.
God being merciful & compassionate whilst omniscient would already knew the reasons why the various sinful Christians had killed their enemies for various reasons.

Logically [according the said doctrines], those who killed their enemy without good and justifiable reasons would be condemned to Hell immediately.
Those who had killed their enemies due to self-defense, officially in a war, unpremeditated reasons and asked for forgiveness would receive lesser punishments and depending on the severity may still have a chance to go to heaven.

Well, the Catholic church thinks that you can confess and repent ANYTHING and go directly to heaven if you die right after. Or let's say, there is a strong tendency in that direction. Jesus already cancelled those sins in advance.
There are other interpretations out there.
The Gnostics come at heaven andhell in a very very different way.
Calvinists have it all prejudged, preordained, we're just watching the film.

Can a Christian decide that the Bible is an inspiring text, partially revealing God and truth, but also flawed?
Can they pray and arrive at their own conclusions, consider Jesus the Son of God but not all things attributed to him in The Bible or other texts, to be true?
Can we say that is a Christian?
Can we rule out they are not?
Obviously many Christians rule out some other Christians as being real Christians. They do this by saying their beliefs, actions, attitudes, words....are not in accordance with Jesus, the true faith, God, The Bible, the correct interpretations of the Bible, the correct sect or church. The arrive at this conclusion either by appealing to the relgious authority the believe in - the Pope, their sect leader, passages in the Bible, divine inspiration, whatever....
but outsiders?
They cannot say 'I believe this religious authority is correct, so you guys are not Christians'

It's the same here. The outsider has no basis to clarify who is going to heaven. they might be able to say to one type of believer 'But your sects interpretation of judgment day and sin and who goes to heaven is this, so this would lead to a murderer going to hell, right?

But they could not sift through the various possible interpretations of who gets to heaven and why and decide which is correct.

They can't even say whether the texts that were included in the Bible and the ones that were excluded are the right ones.

They have no place to start sorting.

[phyllo]

One can say that anything attributed to God in the Bible as a whole overrides everything else, otherwise the Christian God would appear contradictory. So statements indicating that Jews should kill their enemies or an eye for an eye or whatever else could be seen to override the love of enemies.

To sort out the contradictions one must think one has a religious authority one trusts: a priest, a church, scriptural analysis, messages from God, divine inspiration...something that allows you to know. Religious people can do this, without contradiction. Outsiders cannot. The religoius people may well have chosen the wrong authority. All religious authorities may be delusional. God may not exist. But it makes sense for a religious person to believe they can sort these things out since they believe in religious authorities. Atheists do not.

Seriously this is ridiculous. There are even religoius experts - priests, believers of all kinds, monks nuns,w ho would hesitate to say what will happen on judgment day.

Well, the Catholic church thinks that you can confess and repent ANYTHING and go directly to heaven if you die right after. Or let's say, there is a strong tendency in that direction. Jesus already cancelled those sins in advance.
There are other interpretations out there.
The Gnostics come at heaven andhell in a very very different way.
Calvinists have it all prejudged, preordained, we're just watching the film.

Can a Christian decide that the Bible is an inspiring text, partially revealing God and truth, but also flawed?
Can they pray and arrive at their own conclusions, consider Jesus the Son of God but not all things attributed to him in The Bible or other texts, to be true?
Can we say that is a Christian?
Can we rule out they are not?
Obviously many Christians rule out some other Christians as being real Christians. They do this by saying their beliefs, actions, attitudes, words....are not in accordance with Jesus, the true faith, God, The Bible, the correct interpretations of the Bible, the correct sect or church. The arrive at this conclusion either by appealing to the relgious authority the believe in - the Pope, their sect leader, passages in the Bible, divine inspiration, whatever....
but outsiders?
They cannot say 'I believe this religious authority is correct, so you guys are not Christians'

It's the same here. The outsider has no basis to clarify who is going to heaven. they might be able to say to one type of believer 'But your sects interpretation of judgment day and sin and who goes to heaven is this, so this would lead to a murderer going to hell, right?

But they could not sift through the various possible interpretations of who gets to heaven and why and decide which is correct.

They can't even say whether the texts that were included in the Bible and the ones that were excluded are the right ones.

They have no place to start sorting.

I guess the same sort of criticism applies to Serendipper since he's not a Christian and yet he just told us what NT passages mean, what Christians believe and what Christianity is really like. Right?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I guess the same sort of criticism applies to Serendipper since he's not a Christian and yet he just told us what NT passages mean, what Christians believe and what Christianity is really like. Right?

Yes. Serendipper is no longer in a position to say who is not a Christian. It would be hypocrisy. He has no starting point to decide. It no longer makes any sense, since he does not believe in any particular authority who would make such a judgment or support his judgment or be the source of his judgment.

But seriously Phyllo, look at the OP. An atheist is telling people what the Christian God would do (if God existed presumably) on judgement day. I could see saying something like 'It seems to me....' But he knows somehow things that people who call themselves Christians do not have consensus on AND it seems to me his ideas go against certain large Chrisitian organizations ideas. I mean, if he doesn't think Catholics are Christians, well...maybe he's on some kind of better ground. But then on whose authority did he decide that was the case?

If Prismatic makes generalizations, for exmaple, which include misinformation about what was once Serendipper's religion and this is included in Prismatic's generalization as a Christian group, then S can weigh in without it being nonsense. Like if P says all Christians believe X, and P includes S's branch as part of Christianity, then S can certainly say, no 'we didn't believe that'. His experience would still be relevant.

I suppose any of us could argue that P's definition is wrong if, for example, it would mean that group Y are not Christians. P could then say, yes, they are not. But if he continues to assert that group Y is Christian, then one could provide evidence that they do not believe X or do not do Z.

We could work with potential internal contradictions in P's arguments.

I suppose secular people could have some kind of ad hoc definition for census purposes or sociological purposes, but I think it would be very odd and philosophically not justifiable to get into theological and ritual debates to pare those numbers down. You'd pretty much have to take them at face value, anyone claiming to be Christian. If Serendipper is saying some people calling themselves Christians are actually not, he's as offbase as P. If he is arguing that he can see no justification for P excluding some people from being Christians, that can be defensible, one atheist to another. If P is using religious authority to determine if someone is not a Christian, that can be attacked.

This (specifically on this subject) deluded person or liar or deluded liar (or this text written by a deluded person who is deluded about this area of subject matter) says you are Y. Therefore you are Y.

That's just nonsense.

[Serendipper]

I think the pertinent difference is that Prism was never a Christian and probably doesn't live in an area where many Christians exist. I'm totally guessing from the way he talks that maybe he hails from Asia, you know, like India or something.

Ok, he's not from India viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187353&p=2515754&hilit=india#p2515754

But I can tell that wherever he's been, he's been shielded from Christianity. He and I are polar opposites in that regard. Christianity was all I ever knew while I was shielded from the Eastern religions.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think the pertinent difference is that Prism was never a Christian and probably doesn't live in an area where many Christians exist. I'm totally guessing from the way he talks that maybe he hails from Asia, you know, like India or something.

Ok, he's not from India viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187353&p=2515754&hilit=india#p2515754

But I can tell that wherever he's been, he's been shielded from Christianity. He and I are polar opposites in that regard. Christianity was all I ever knew while I was shielded from the Eastern religions.

I wondered if he is a recovering Muslim, hence his once long focus on all that is wrong, like ex-smokers who hate smoke more than than people who never smoked.

But I get Phyllo's point. You can certainly fill P in on where he is mischaracterizing Christian beliefs, especially if he is including Calvinists, since that was yours. But you can't really say person X, who claims to be a Christian, is not one. And you can't say these are the criteria that allow one to be a Christian. Since you no longer believe in any religious authority.

I think a non-christian could say 'If someone identifies as a Christian, I accept that.' Which is different form saying they are that.

Prismatic is giving Christian theology lessons, and ones that seem to me are controversial in some of the big Christian churches.

And I can't see any reason why he is doing this. He is almost proselytizing for Christianity, as an atheist. It is so important that C is seen as better than I, he is almost an advocate for C. Which is part of why I wonder if he was once M.

[Serendipper]

I wondered if he is a recovering Muslim, hence his once long focus on all that is wrong, like ex-smokers who hate smoke more than than people who never smoked.

But I get Phyllo's point. You can certainly fill P in on where he is mischaracterizing Christian beliefs, especially if he is including Calvinists, since that was yours. But you can't really say person X, who claims to be a Christian, is not one. And you can't say these are the criteria that allow one to be a Christian. Since you no longer believe in any religious authority.

I think a non-christian could say 'If someone identifies as a Christian, I accept that.' Which is different form saying they are that.

Prismatic is giving Christian theology lessons, and ones that seem to me are controversial in some of the big Christian churches.

And I can't see any reason why he is doing this. He is almost proselytizing for Christianity, as an atheist. It is so important that C is seen as better than I, he is almost an advocate for C. Which is part of why I wonder if he was once M.

I was thinking H, but he's not that either. He said "Whilst I am not a Hindu, not from India, I was involved in Vedanta quite seriously in one phase." Maybe he'll showup later and clear it up.

[Prismatic567]

Loving enemies is actually an expression of a desire to punish enemies.

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

"heap coals of fire on his head" is definitely metaphorical or allegorical.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/comment ... 12-20.html
If you google "Romans 12:20 meaning" you will note the explanations by various Christians which I agree is not literal.

There are many cases of 'enemies' of Christians who were overwhelmed [coals of fire in the head] by the kindness of Christians towards them and they subsequently converted to Christianity.

So that's one thing.

Another is Matthew 5, the beatitudes:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

So we love enemies, not for its own sake, but to get a reward which is a feeling of superiority as being better than enemies, publicans, and others. That doesn't seem so virtuous to me. I'd be more impressed if someone genuinely wanted to help their enemies by improving them and possibly winning them as friends.

What's wrong with being morally superior with the ability to 'love your enemies'.

While "heap coals of fire on his head" is metaphorical, 'love your enemies' is literal, but not like 'falling in love' with the opposite sex nor mother-son love but 'love' in general.

In another sense, a Christian is not expected to 'love your enemies' stupidly and blindly.

From the overall perspective 'love your enemies' is a moral absolute and an ideal which cannot be applied as an absolute in the practical perspectives due to the varying contexts.

"Love your enemies" is a moral absolute [like Kant's Categorical Imperative/Maxim] within the Christianity' Ethical System.
'Love your enemies" as an absolute is thus merely a guide for personal ethics.

Ethics: What Does Jesus Mean by 'Love Your Enemies'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHpOODbaMOQ

But christianity is really very simian, petty, and childish which I think is evidence of who created it (hint: ancient dumb desert people). But there are some smart bits, mainly those shoehorned in later, such as the story of the woman caught in adultery where Jesus asks the one without sin to cast the first stone at her.

I believe the Abrahamic religions [incl Christianity] are inferior to the Eastern Religions. I also believe ALL religions must be weaned off eventually.
Christianity has its negative elements but it is the most effective and optimal religion for the masses since 2000+ years ago and even to the present but its shelf life is expiring soon. Thus Christianity need to be replaced by fool proofs spiritual approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

what do think is likely to happen on Judgment Day to those Christians who had killed their enemies.

All sins are covered by the blood of jesus. Christians do not stand before the judgement; it's what you're saved from. Saved is past tense; it cannot be undone. Some sects believe one can backslide, but the bible is fairly clear about things like predestination.

The endtime scenario goes like this:

Jesus returns in the clouds of glory summoning the dead in Christ to rise first, receiving new bodies, and those who are alive will be caught-up next, also getting new bodies. Who is left is judged and then everyone on earth, along with the earth, will be destroyed making room for a new heaven and earth.

But the idea of Christians being judged is in no way consistent with any branch of Christianity, except the purgatory of Catholicism, which I think even then only applies to those who die before Christ returns because it's in the interim period that the supposed purgatory exists and actually precedes judgement. (Purgatory is a concoction of the church to make money.)

Read This;

What is Judgment Day?
Judgment Day. Also known as the Final Judgment. It is the very last thing that happens before God destroys the old heaven and the old earth, which are corrupt on account of sin
Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His laws. To commit sin is to transgress or disobey these laws. The lust to sin dwells in human nature. In other words, it is contaminated and motivated by the sinful tendencies that dwell in all people as a result of the fall into sin and disobedience in the garden of Eden. This... More
. Before He creates His new heaven and new earth, He has to do away with anything that could bring sin into the new creation.

The devil has just been cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet (Antichrist) have already been since they were defeated when Jesus returned before the beginning of the millennium. This is to be the eternal retribution for their sin and rebellion against God. Now the time has come for God to judge who is to join them in the lake of fire, and who is worthy of a place on the new earth.

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10.

https://activechristianity.org/what-doe ... dgment-day

Btw, I spent 3 years full time research and analyzing Islam and the Quran, but I have also done quite extensive research [not as much as Islam] into Christianity.

[Prismatic567]

In the Gospels of the NT, there is an overriding* pacifist maxim, i.e.
"love your enemies" together with loving everything else.

*"love your enemies" has to be overriding else the Christian God would appear to be contradictory. An omni-potent and all powerful God cannot be contradictory.

One can say that anything attributed to God in the Bible as a whole overrides everything else, otherwise the Christian God would appear contradictory. So statements indicating that Jews should kill their enemies or an eye for an eye or whatever else could be seen to override the love of enemies.

Yours is a strawman.
The 'eye for an eye' in OT.
Note the overriding text of Christianity are the Gospels within the NT.
If you read the Gospels the main theme is above 'love' in various contexts.

To sort out the contradictions one must think one has a religious authority one trusts: a priest, a church, scriptural analysis, messages from God, divine inspiration...something that allows you to know. Religious people can do this, without contradiction. Outsiders cannot. The religoius people may well have chosen the wrong authority. All religious authorities may be delusional. God may not exist. But it makes sense for a religious person to believe they can sort these things out since they believe in religious authorities. Atheists do not.

The last persons we can get any objective views are from believers themselves being trapped in a desperate state of existential crisis, thus full of confirmation bias.

Non-theists who are philosophically driven, leverage on critical thinking and rationality, reading and researching from all perspectives of Christianity and Christianity will be able to give a more objective views of Christianity and Christians.

Note I am not merely expressing my subjective feelings but rather I have done extensive research into Christianity to justify my views grounded on philosophy and critical thinking.

In accordance to the doctrine of Christianity per the Gospels,
what do think is likely to happen on Judgment Day to those Christians who had killed their enemies.

I anticipate the following would happen when a Christian who had killed his enemies meet God and Jesus on Judgment Day.

God [& Jesus] to Christian: WTF, I commanded you to love your enemies not kill them, but you defy our commands and kill your enemies.

Christian: (With blah, blah, pleadings), I had to kill my enemies for XYZ reasons .

God [& Jesus]: I am omniscient and I knew in your heart why you'd killed your enemies. The judgment on you is as follow; .....................

Seriously this is ridiculous. There are even religoius experts - priests, believers of all kinds, monks nuns,w ho would hesitate to say what will happen on judgment day.

Note I quoted this above;

What is Judgment Day?
Judgment Day. Also known as the Final Judgment. It is the very last thing that happens before God destroys the old heaven and the old earth, which are corrupt on account of sin
Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His laws. To commit sin is to transgress or disobey these laws. The lust to sin dwells in human nature. In other words, it is contaminated and motivated by the sinful tendencies that dwell in all people as a result of the fall into sin and disobedience in the garden of Eden. This... More
. Before He creates His new heaven and new earth, He has to do away with anything that could bring sin into the new creation.

The devil has just been cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet (Antichrist) have already been since they were defeated when Jesus returned before the beginning of the millennium. This is to be the eternal retribution for their sin and rebellion against God. Now the time has come for God to judge who is to join them in the lake of fire, and who is worthy of a place on the new earth.

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10.

It is a fact Christians would have killed for XYZ reasons.
God being merciful & compassionate whilst omniscient would already knew the reasons why the various sinful Christians had killed their enemies for various reasons.

Logically [according the said doctrines], those who killed their enemy without good and justifiable reasons would be condemned to Hell immediately.
Those who had killed their enemies due to self-defense, officially in a war, unpremeditated reasons and asked for forgiveness would receive lesser punishments and depending on the severity may still have a chance to go to heaven.

Well, the Catholic church thinks that you can confess and repent ANYTHING and go directly to heaven if you die right after. Or let's say, there is a strong tendency in that direction. Jesus already cancelled those sins in advance.
There are other interpretations out there.
The Gnostics come at heaven and hell in a very very different way.
Calvinists have it all prejudged, preordained, we're just watching the film.

Can a Christian decide that the Bible is an inspiring text, partially revealing God and truth, but also flawed?
Can they pray and arrive at their own conclusions, consider Jesus the Son of God but not all things attributed to him in The Bible or other texts, to be true?
Can we say that is a Christian?
Can we rule out they are not?
Obviously many Christians rule out some other Christians as being real Christians. They do this by saying their beliefs, actions, attitudes, words....are not in accordance with Jesus, the true faith, God, The Bible, the correct interpretations of the Bible, the correct sect or church. The arrive at this conclusion either by appealing to the relgious authority the believe in - the Pope, their sect leader, passages in the Bible, divine inspiration, whatever....
but outsiders?
They cannot say 'I believe this religious authority is correct, so you guys are not Christians'

It's the same here. The outsider has no basis to clarify who is going to heaven. they might be able to say to one type of believer 'But your sects interpretation of judgment day and sin and who goes to heaven is this, so this would lead to a murderer going to hell, right?

But they could not sift through the various possible interpretations of who gets to heaven and why and decide which is correct.

They can't even say whether the texts that were included in the Bible and the ones that were excluded are the right ones.

They have no place to start sorting.

What is done on Earth, the final act to heaven is still subject to the conditions of the Judgment Day, see quote above.

[Prismatic567]

I think the pertinent difference is that Prism was never a Christian and probably doesn't live in an area where many Christians exist. I'm totally guessing from the way he talks that maybe he hails from Asia, you know, like India or something.

Ok, he's not from India viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187353&p=2515754&hilit=india#p2515754

But I can tell that wherever he's been, he's been shielded from Christianity. He and I are polar opposites in that regard. Christianity was all I ever knew while I was shielded from the Eastern religions.

Note the problem is, your knowledge of Christianity is merely confined to your sect [or group] thus very silo-based, shallow and narrow.
Btw, I spent 3 years full time research and analyzing Islam and the Quran, but I have also done quite extensive research [not as much as Islam] into Christianity. I have read the Bible many times and have read thousand+ of materials, i.e. books, articles with videos.

I make it a point to maintain intellectual integrity, I am a very voracious reader and at present we have the internet. Thus I was never shielded from Christianity.

Not to be specific, I am from East Asia, not South [not India].

[Prismatic567]

I think the pertinent difference is that Prism was never a Christian and probably doesn't live in an area where many Christians exist. I'm totally guessing from the way he talks that maybe he hails from Asia, you know, like India or something.

Ok, he's not from India viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187353&p=2515754&hilit=india#p2515754

But I can tell that wherever he's been, he's been shielded from Christianity. He and I are polar opposites in that regard. Christianity was all I ever knew while I was shielded from the Eastern religions.

I wondered if he is a recovering Muslim, hence his once long focus on all that is wrong, like ex-smokers who hate smoke more than than people who never smoked.

But I get Phyllo's point. You can certainly fill P in on where he is mischaracterizing Christian beliefs, especially if he is including Calvinists, since that was yours. But you can't really say person X, who claims to be a Christian, is not one. And you can't say these are the criteria that allow one to be a Christian. Since you no longer believe in any religious authority.

I think a non-christian could say 'If someone identifies as a Christian, I accept that.' Which is different form saying they are that.

Prismatic is giving Christian theology lessons, and ones that seem to me are controversial in some of the big Christian churches.

And I can't see any reason why he is doing this. He is almost proselytizing for Christianity, as an atheist. It is so important that C is seen as better than I, he is almost an advocate for C. Which is part of why I wonder if he was once M.

I was never religious but rather spiritually inclined.

I am not giving Christian theology lessons. I am discussing the various issues on Christianity from the philosophical perspective.

Despite its negative baggage, I believe Christianity has its merits relative and optimal to the present circumstances. I believe [with reservations] Christianity to be the most optimal religion for the masses at present and will have no hesitation to recommend anyone who has the relevant psychological temperament for it.
However, we need to start the process of taking steps right now to wean off all religions in the future and replace them with fool proof spiritual methods.

[Serendipper]

Loving enemies is actually an expression of a desire to punish enemies.

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

"heap coals of fire on his head" is definitely metaphorical or allegorical.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/comment ... 12-20.html
If you google "Romans 12:20 meaning" you will note the explanations by various Christians which I agree is not literal.

There are many cases of 'enemies' of Christians who were overwhelmed [coals of fire in the head] by the kindness of Christians towards them and they subsequently converted to Christianity.

That's why they burned people at the stake, according to Alan Watts, in order to do them the favor of giving them one last chance to repent before being condemned to hell.

What's wrong with being morally superior with the ability to 'love your enemies'.

Because it's full of conceit. Christianity is a dichotomy of, on one hand, being sure of your salvation and, on the other, always being in humble questioning.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

But the prevailing theme, if there is one, is that of humility:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

nothing can be more egotistical.jpg (26.01 KiB) Viewed 5664 times

Because you're trying to save your own ass.

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Feelings of moral superiority is morally inferior

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

While "heap coals of fire on his head" is metaphorical, 'love your enemies' is literal, but not like 'falling in love' with the opposite sex nor mother-son love but 'love' in general.

I know what you mean. There are 4 types of love in the bible: godly love (agape), brotherly love (phileo), sexual (eros), and parental (storge) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

In another sense, a Christian is not expected to 'love your enemies' stupidly and blindly.

From the overall perspective 'love your enemies' is a moral absolute and an ideal which cannot be applied as an absolute in the practical perspectives due to the varying contexts.

"Love your enemies" is a moral absolute [like Kant's Categorical Imperative/Maxim] within the Christianity' Ethical System.
'Love your enemies" as an absolute is thus merely a guide for personal ethics.

Ethics: What Does Jesus Mean by 'Love Your Enemies'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHpOODbaMOQ

First of all, it's impossible to love anyone but yourself, so the only reason to "love" someone else is to benefit yourself, which is fine if you recognize that, I think. But to love someone in order to be morally superior I think is a petty and childish method to be one-up on the universe: "I'm better than my enemy because I love them."

But christianity is really very simian, petty, and childish which I think is evidence of who created it (hint: ancient dumb desert people). But there are some smart bits, mainly those shoehorned in later, such as the story of the woman caught in adultery where Jesus asks the one without sin to cast the first stone at her.

I believe the Abrahamic religions [incl Christianity] are inferior to the Eastern Religions. I also believe ALL religions must be weaned off eventually.

Yep, I agree.

Christianity has its negative elements but it is the most effective and optimal religion for the masses since 2000+ years ago and even to the present but its shelf life is expiring soon. Thus Christianity need to be replaced by fool proofs spiritual approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

What's wrong with Tat Tvam Asi? You are who I would be if I were you, so I can't condemn you. The thing making me function is the same thing that's making you function, so there is no "if I were you, I would do this differently" because if I were you, I would do what you're doing. So "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is perfectly applicable one we realize that we are in fact the same.

Read This;

What is Judgment Day?
Judgment Day. Also known as the Final Judgment. It is the very last thing that happens before God destroys the old heaven and the old earth, which are corrupt on account of sin
Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His laws. To commit sin is to transgress or disobey these laws. The lust to sin dwells in human nature. In other words, it is contaminated and motivated by the sinful tendencies that dwell in all people as a result of the fall into sin and disobedience in the garden of Eden. This... More
. Before He creates His new heaven and new earth, He has to do away with anything that could bring sin into the new creation.

The devil has just been cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet (Antichrist) have already been since they were defeated when Jesus returned before the beginning of the millennium. This is to be the eternal retribution for their sin and rebellion against God. Now the time has come for God to judge who is to join them in the lake of fire, and who is worthy of a place on the new earth.

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10.

https://activechristianity.org/what-doe ... dgment-day

Btw, I spent 3 years full time research and analyzing Islam and the Quran, but I have also done quite extensive research [not as much as Islam] into Christianity.

There are lots of ways to posit the end time scenario. Some believe in a rapture where people will disappear from the moving cars leaving cars crashing into each other. Then there will be a 7 year tribulation period, then a 1000 year reign, then the judgement. But Peter says:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

God cannot come, leave, then come back again. As soon as he shows his face, it's over. No evil can exist in his presence. Those covered in the blood will be shielded.

The 2 Corinthians 5:10 you quoted is judgement while still alive:

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
.
.
.
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

How can a new creature be judged for the old creature's actions?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There is no mention of any particular punishments to be meted out to the saved anywhere in the bible that I know about. They are simply joined with the lord and that's the end. All sins are forgiven, so there is nothing to judge.

[Serendipper]

I think the pertinent difference is that Prism was never a Christian and probably doesn't live in an area where many Christians exist. I'm totally guessing from the way he talks that maybe he hails from Asia, you know, like India or something.

Ok, he's not from India viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187353&p=2515754&hilit=india#p2515754

But I can tell that wherever he's been, he's been shielded from Christianity. He and I are polar opposites in that regard. Christianity was all I ever knew while I was shielded from the Eastern religions.

Note the problem is, your knowledge of Christianity is merely confined to your sect [or group] thus very silo-based, shallow and narrow.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I started catholic, then diverted to Baptist, then to Pentecostal, then I fell away while mom went on to 7th Day Adventist. I know every interpretation over the course of 20 years of various churches and opinions and I'm robustly armed to argue the bible with anyone on this planet from a variety of perspectives (though I may be a little rusty since it's not anything I recently engaged in).

Btw, I spent 3 years full time research and analyzing Islam and the Quran, but I have also done quite extensive research [not as much as Islam] into Christianity. I have read the Bible many times and have read thousand+ of materials, i.e. books, articles with videos.

I make it a point to maintain intellectual integrity, I am a very voracious reader and at present we have the internet. Thus I was never shielded from Christianity.

You can read as much as you want, but you can never know what I know from living it. If you were really a lover of wisdom you'd be asking rather than telling. I would never go to Asia and start telling the people there what they know; they would look at me stupid. You have a window to a world through me that only exists to me and you can either peer through the glass or paint your impression over it to obscure your own view. Do you want to know how they think or not?

Not to be specific, I am from East Asia, not South [not India].

Good enough.

[Prismatic567]

That's why they burned people at the stake, according to Alan Watts, in order to do them the favor of giving them one last chance to repent before being condemned to hell.

There is nothing in the Gospels calling Christians to burn anyone at the stake.
If they do that [re witches, Salem, etc.], they are not doing it as Christian but as evil humans.

What's wrong with being morally superior with the ability to 'love your enemies'.

Because it's full of conceit. Christianity is a dichotomy of, on one hand, being sure of your salvation and, on the other, always being in humble questioning.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

But the prevailing theme, if there is one, is that of humility:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

It is a matter of superior ethics as in Philosophy of Ethics and Morally.
Having a maxim of 'love your enemies' [Christianity] is definitely superior in ethics to 'kill non-believers and enemies' [Islam].
'Conceit' is a feeling by the individual which is not Christianity per se and the Bible condemned 'pride' as a terrible sin.

nothing can be more egotistical.jpg

Because you're trying to save your own ass.

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Feelings of moral superiority is morally inferior

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

I agree salvation is very egoistic and selfish.
This has nothing to do with a superior form of ethics relative to other lesser ethical system.

First of all, it's impossible to love anyone but yourself, so the only reason to "love" someone else is to benefit yourself, which is fine if you recognize that, I think. But to love someone in order to be morally superior I think is a petty and childish method to be one-up on the universe: "I'm better than my enemy because I love them."

Note there is the natural and inherent mirror neurons and oxytocins which trigger 'love' for others than oneself.

Oxytocin is a hormone and a neurotransmitter that is involved in childbirth and breast-feeding. It is also associated with empathy, trust, sexual activity, and relationship-building.

It is sometimes referred to as the "love hormone," because levels of oxytocin increase during hugging and orgasm. It may also have benefits as a treatment for a number of conditions, including depression, anxiety, and intestinal problems.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/275795.php

Christianity has its negative elements but it is the most effective and optimal religion for the masses since 2000+ years ago and even to the present but its shelf life is expiring soon. Thus Christianity need to be replaced by fool proofs spiritual approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

What's wrong with Tat Tvam Asi? You are who I would be if I were you, so I can't condemn you. The thing making me function is the same thing that's making you function, so there is no "if I were you, I would do this differently" because if I were you, I would do what you're doing. So "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is perfectly applicable one we realize that we are in fact the same.

The Eastern religions are more superior to the Abrahamic but they are not as effective and optimal to the majority of individuals in their present psychological state.
The majority of people at present are in such a terrible and desperate existential crisis psychologically that they require an illusory all powerful deity to save them. The fact is that it works albeit placebo_lically and unfortunately with terrible evil consequences to non-believers.
The fortunately thing is more people [e.g. yourself] are evolving out of this deep psychological shit_hole and most are opting for more spiritual approaches of the Eastern genre.

Read This;

What is Judgment Day?

The devil has just been cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet (Antichrist) have already been since they were defeated when Jesus returned before the beginning of the millennium. This is to be the eternal retribution for their sin and rebellion against God.
Now the time has come for God to judge who is to join them in the lake of fire, and who is worthy of a place on the new earth.

https://activechristianity.org/what-doe ... dgment-day

There is no mention of any particular punishments to be meted out to the saved anywhere in the bible that I know about. They are simply joined with the lord and that's the end. All sins are forgiven, so there is nothing to judge.

Note the final judgment of 'who is to join them in the lake of fire' i.e. HELL.
Surely that is punishment itself?

[Prismatic567]

I think the pertinent difference is that Prism was never a Christian and probably doesn't live in an area where many Christians exist. I'm totally guessing from the way he talks that maybe he hails from Asia, you know, like India or something.

Ok, he's not from India viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187353&p=2515754&hilit=india#p2515754

But I can tell that wherever he's been, he's been shielded from Christianity. He and I are polar opposites in that regard. Christianity was all I ever knew while I was shielded from the Eastern religions.

Note the problem is, your knowledge of Christianity is merely confined to your sect [or group] thus very silo-based, shallow and narrow.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I started catholic, then diverted to Baptist, then to Pentecostal, then I fell away while mom went on to 7th Day Adventist. I know every interpretation over the course of 20 years of various churches and opinions and I'm robustly armed to argue the bible with anyone on this planet from a variety of perspectives (though I may be a little rusty since it's not anything I recently engaged in).

Btw, I spent 3 years full time research and analyzing Islam and the Quran, but I have also done quite extensive research [not as much as Islam] into Christianity. I have read the Bible many times and have read thousand+ of materials, i.e. books, articles with videos.

I make it a point to maintain intellectual integrity, I am a very voracious reader and at present we have the internet. Thus I was never shielded from Christianity.

You can read as much as you want, but you can never know what I know from living it.
If you were really a lover of wisdom you'd be asking rather than telling. I would never go to Asia and start telling the people there what they know; they would look at me stupid. You have a window to a world through me that only exists to me and you can either peer through the glass or paint your impression over it to obscure your own view. Do you want to know how they think or not?

For thousands of years Christians had believed the Earth was flat and all sorts of nonsensical ideas.
What is there to learn from those [you and your past experiences] who had believed an illusory God as a real thing.

I on the other hand had studied religions and spirituality within the ambit of Philosophy of Religions and Spirituality, i.e. conditioned by critical thinking, rationality, logic, intellectual integrity, objectivity, etc. as requirements.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I was never religious but rather spiritually inclined.

Which is either 1) strange, since you do not believe in spiritual entities or 2) you are using the term in its sense of having to do with breathing. But then otters would be then spiritual creatures. It's extremely misleading to use the word if you mean it as having to do with breathing. Most people will think you are saying something about your philosophical self and additionally on issues related to non-material reality.

I am not giving Christian theology lessons. I am discussing the various issues on Christianity from the philosophical perspective.

The moment you start saying what God would or will do on Judgment day, how God thinks, what God knows, etc., that is theology.

However, we need to start the process of taking steps right now to wean off all religions in the future and replace them with fool proof spiritual methods.

Which can only mean they can hold their breath a long time and suffer a lot of pain with equanimity - given your other threads. These are physical skills not philosohpical or spiritual ones.

[Serendipper]

That's why they burned people at the stake, according to Alan Watts, in order to do them the favor of giving them one last chance to repent before being condemned to hell.

There is nothing in the Gospels calling Christians to burn anyone at the stake.
If they do that [re witches, Salem, etc.], they are not doing it as Christian but as evil humans.

But they were christians. The pope apologized for it. He owned it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... hn_Paul_II

What's wrong with being morally superior with the ability to 'love your enemies'.

Because it's full of conceit. Christianity is a dichotomy of, on one hand, being sure of your salvation and, on the other, always being in humble questioning.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

But the prevailing theme, if there is one, is that of humility:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

It is a matter of superior ethics as in Philosophy of Ethics and Morally.
Having a maxim of 'love your enemies' [Christianity] is definitely superior in ethics to 'kill non-believers and enemies' [Islam].
'Conceit' is a feeling by the individual which is not Christianity per se and the Bible condemned 'pride' as a terrible sin.

Yeah, well, what the bible says is irrelevant. Pride is good and pride is bad. 1000 contradictions in the bible https://wardoons.wordpress.com/debate/

One can make a case for any position one wants to defend by using the bible. You should know this yourself since you just did it with 2 Corinthians yesterday by using that verse to substantiate christians standing before judgement. You can make a biblical argument for just about anything.

First of all, it's impossible to love anyone but yourself, so the only reason to "love" someone else is to benefit yourself, which is fine if you recognize that, I think. But to love someone in order to be morally superior I think is a petty and childish method to be one-up on the universe: "I'm better than my enemy because I love them."

Note there is the natural and inherent mirror neurons and oxytocins which trigger 'love' for others than oneself.

Right, so you love the other because you love the chemicals.

Christianity has its negative elements but it is the most effective and optimal religion for the masses since 2000+ years ago and even to the present but its shelf life is expiring soon. Thus Christianity need to be replaced by fool proofs spiritual approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

What's wrong with Tat Tvam Asi? You are who I would be if I were you, so I can't condemn you. The thing making me function is the same thing that's making you function, so there is no "if I were you, I would do this differently" because if I were you, I would do what you're doing. So "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is perfectly applicable one we realize that we are in fact the same.

The Eastern religions are more superior to the Abrahamic but they are not as effective and optimal to the majority of individuals in their present psychological state.
The majority of people at present are in such a terrible and desperate existential crisis psychologically that they require an illusory all powerful deity to save them. The fact is that it works albeit placebo_lically and unfortunately with terrible evil consequences to non-believers.
The fortunately thing is more people [e.g. yourself] are evolving out of this deep psychological shit_hole and most are opting for more spiritual approaches of the Eastern genre.

I guess you're right but why do we have to move towards a deity instead or eastern religion? Because the people are stupid? I tried to convince atheists to embrace zen or panvitalism as a way to wean christians off of god (since that's essentially how I escaped), but they ran me off.

Note the final judgment of 'who is to join them in the lake of fire' i.e. HELL.
Surely that is punishment itself?

Oh, you're referring to hell being cast into the lake of fire? Yeah, that often confused me as well. Idk, it's open to interpretation. Some people think if you die now and are not covered in the blood, then you go to hell until the judgement day when you're resurrected to stand judgement, then you go to the lake of fire. Others suppose you go straight through time to judgement. There really are no biblical references to clear it up. But one thing is clear: christians don't go to either place. That's the whole concept of salvation: what you're saved from is the judgement because if you enter into the judgement, you will be found guilty and cast into the lake of fire. My stepdad (7th day adventist) doesn't believe in hell; he simply believes sinners will be destroyed and not punished.

Herbert W. Armstrong (July 31, 1892 – January 16, 1986) founded the Radio Church of God, incorporated October 21, 1933 and later renamed Worldwide Church of God on June 1, 1968, as well as starting Ambassador College October 8, 1947.

He wrote a book called "Mystery of the Ages", which I have, and within it he says soul = body + spirit. In other words, you don't exist unless you have a body and life-force (ie spirit, breath of god). So when the body dies, you're gone until you receive a new body. That is the resurrection and what's required to stand judgement or go to heaven or hell or have any existence whatsoever. He determined this from genesis where god took the dirt and breathed life into it and it became a living soul.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I've sometimes wondered if the human race could progress technologically to a point of recreating people from genetic information for the purpose of punishing them, like Hitler, for instance. He committed suicide and that's not fair, so we'll remake him and punish him good. But what's the point of that? If that seems stupid, then why would god do it?

[Serendipper]

For thousands of years Christians had believed the Earth was flat and all sorts of nonsensical ideas.
What is there to learn from those [you and your past experiences] who had believed an illusory God as a real thing.

I on the other hand had studied religions and spirituality within the ambit of Philosophy of Religions and Spirituality, i.e. conditioned by critical thinking, rationality, logic, intellectual integrity, objectivity, etc. as requirements.

So you're suggesting I could learn everything there is to know about Buddhism by reading? I think that's an arrogant position to hold. You know the words, but not the music.

I have no doubt that if I were to go to Asia and meet real Buddhists I would be saying to myself "this isn't buddhism at all!" If you came to the US you would think the same about Christians: they're all hypocrites.

[Karpel Tunnel]

For thousands of years Christians had believed the Earth was flat and all sorts of nonsensical ideas.
What is there to learn from those [you and your past experiences] who had believed an illusory God as a real thing.

I on the other hand had studied religions and spirituality within the ambit of Philosophy of Religions and Spirituality, i.e. conditioned by critical thinking, rationality, logic, intellectual integrity, objectivity, etc. as requirements.

So you're suggesting I could learn everything there is to know about Buddhism by reading? I think that's an arrogant position to hold. You know the words, but not the music.

I have no doubt that if I were to go to Asia and meet real Buddhists I would be saying to myself "this isn't buddhism at all!" If you came to the US you would think the same about Christians: they're all hypocrites.

I've experienced Buddhism and HInduism in the East and West and most westerners would be surprised by many things. Buddhist theists, the power relations at Ashrams and the incredible variety of Hinduisms - monotheistic hinduisms, polytheistic hinduisms, near atheistic ones....And there are huge differences between the various Buddhist traditions, with regional and local differences. Difference in practices, beliefs and lifestyle.

[Prismatic567]

I was never religious but rather spiritually inclined.

Which is either 1) strange, since you do not believe in spiritual entities or 2) you are using the term in its sense of having to do with breathing. But then otters would be then spiritual creatures. It's extremely misleading to use the word if you mean it as having to do with breathing. Most people will think you are saying something about your philosophical self and additionally on issues related to non-material reality.

The term 'spirit' and 'spiritual' has many perspectives. I understand the common meaning is related to religions.
But I am using 'spiritual' in the sense of the good overall well being of the individual.

Note spiritual [religious] is a a subset of spiritual [well being].
The point is spiritual [religious] generally do not result in the highest level of spiritual [well being].
One [not the sole determinant] of the basic foundation of spiritual [well being] is good breathing techniques.
To perform any sport at the highest level of excellence, one need good breathing techniques.

My point here is the majority of the Abrahamic believers [religious spirituality] do not attain the higher percentile of spirituality [well being] because they do not practice good breathing techniques.

Your otter example is a straw man and rhetorical. We relate spirituality to humans only not non-human animals.

I am not giving Christian theology lessons. I am discussing the various issues on Christianity from the philosophical perspective.

The moment you start saying what God would or will do on Judgment day, how God thinks, what God knows, etc., that is theology.

I am discussing theology not giving lessons [information and instructions] on how to be religious in the theological sense like what a pastor would be doing.

However, we need to start the process of taking steps right now to wean off all religions in the future and replace them with fool proof spiritual methods.

Which can only mean they can hold their breath a long time and suffer a lot of pain with equanimity - given your other threads. These are physical skills not philosohpical or spiritual ones.

Yes, these are the basic skills [among other critical ones] that they would need to develop.
It is dealing with and how to modulate pain to maintain equanimity.
These are the basic skills and foundation to reach the higher realms of well being [spirituality] holistically.
Good breathing techniques [as for any refine human actions] is one of the basic essential skills.

[Prismatic567]

For thousands of years Christians had believed the Earth was flat and all sorts of nonsensical ideas.
What is there to learn from those [you and your past experiences] who had believed an illusory God as a real thing.

I on the other hand had studied religions and spirituality within the ambit of Philosophy of Religions and Spirituality, i.e. conditioned by critical thinking, rationality, logic, intellectual integrity, objectivity, etc. as requirements.

So you're suggesting I could learn everything there is to know about Buddhism by reading? I think that's an arrogant position to hold. You know the words, but not the music.

I have no doubt that if I were to go to Asia and meet real Buddhists I would be saying to myself "this isn't buddhism at all!" If you came to the US you would think the same about Christians: they're all hypocrites.

Yes, you could know every theory about Buddhism by reading, of course not the experience until you practice it.
The point is to be competent within Philosophy of Religions and Spirituality, you have to study [read, research and analyze] all the main religions and spiritual to understand their forms and underlying essence.

I am primarily more interested in the Principles of Religion and Spirituality underlying all religions, the forms are secondary.
From the underlying principles, we support this with knowledge from all advance knowledge, i.e. neuroscience, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychological, genomics, connectome and whatever is necessary to understand religion and spirituality thoroughly.

[Prismatic567]

That's why they burned people at the stake, according to Alan Watts, in order to do them the favor of giving them one last chance to repent before being condemned to hell.

There is nothing in the Gospels calling Christians to burn anyone at the stake.
If they do that [re witches, Salem, etc.], they are not doing it as Christian but as evil humans.

But they were christians. The pope apologized for it. He owned it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... hn_Paul_II

The Vatican also apologized for the pedophiles within the Catholic clergy, that does not mean raping of children is permitted within the Gospels [the terms of covenant to be a Christian].

Yeah, well, what the bible says is irrelevant. Pride is good and pride is bad. 1000 contradictions in the bible https://wardoons.wordpress.com/debate/

You are going out of point.
To be a Christian one has to accept the terms of the covenant within the Gospels in association with other elements relevant in the Bible.

One can make a case for any position one wants to defend by using the bible. You should know this yourself since you just did it with 2 Corinthians yesterday by using that verse to substantiate christians standing before judgement. You can make a biblical argument for just about anything.

That is not from the Gospels but a supporting point.

The Gospel Message Includes Judgment
Please don’t miss the significance of this text. Paul is summoned to speak before a great government official. This is his opportunity to carefully communicate the Gospel. And, as part of the Gospel, he includes “the coming judgment.”
https://www.str.org/blog/gospel-without ... IyN3ygzbIU

First of all, it's impossible to love anyone but yourself, so the only reason to "love" someone else is to benefit yourself, which is fine if you recognize that, I think. But to love someone in order to be morally superior I think is a petty and childish method to be one-up on the universe: "I'm better than my enemy because I love them."

Note there is the natural and inherent mirror neurons and oxytocins which trigger 'love' for others than oneself.

Right, so you love the other because you love the chemicals.

What kind of understanding is that?
The natural drive to 'love' is triggered by chemicals, not 'love the chemicals'.

The Eastern religions are more superior to the Abrahamic but they are not as effective and optimal to the majority of individuals in their present psychological state.
The majority of people at present are in such a terrible and desperate existential crisis psychologically that they require an illusory all powerful deity to save them. The fact is that it works albeit placebo_lically and unfortunately with terrible evil consequences to non-believers.
The fortunately thing is more people [e.g. yourself] are evolving out of this deep psychological shit_hole and most are opting for more spiritual approaches of the Eastern genre.

I guess you're right but why do we have to move towards a deity instead or eastern religion? Because the people are stupid? I tried to convince atheists to embrace zen or panvitalism as a way to wean christians off of god (since that's essentially how I escaped), but they ran me off.[/quote]
At present the psychological state of the majority are such that they are caught/trapped in a terrible existential psychological state such that believing in a deity [illusory] is the most effective for them.

Such a desperate existential trap and impulse is represented by a very complicated primal neural knot [inherent] that need to be unknotted, inhibited and modulated.

You are fortunate to have been able to inhibit such a terrible primal impulse [I don't know how you did it, but you have succeeded].
This is why I suggested the effective breathing techniques as a start to unknot and modulate that unavoidable existential crisis.
Note everything there is a panic or high emotional attack, the most effective counter is to breathe comfortably.

Note the final judgment of 'who is to join them in the lake of fire' i.e. HELL.
Surely that is punishment itself?

Oh, you're referring to hell being cast into the lake of fire? Yeah, that often confused me as well. Idk, it's open to interpretation. Some people think if you die now and are not covered in the blood, then you go to hell until the judgement day when you're resurrected to stand judgement, then you go to the lake of fire. Others suppose you go straight through time to judgement. There really are no biblical references to clear it up. But one thing is clear: christians don't go to either place. That's the whole concept of salvation: what you're saved from is the judgement because if you enter into the judgement, you will be found guilty and cast into the lake of fire. My stepdad (7th day adventist) doesn't believe in hell; he simply believes sinners will be destroyed and not punished.

Herbert W. Armstrong (July 31, 1892 – January 16, 1986) founded the Radio Church of God, incorporated October 21, 1933 and later renamed Worldwide Church of God on June 1, 1968, as well as starting Ambassador College October 8, 1947.

He wrote a book called "Mystery of the Ages", which I have, and within it he says soul = body + spirit. In other words, you don't exist unless you have a body and life-force (ie spirit, breath of god). So when the body dies, you're gone until you receive a new body. That is the resurrection and what's required to stand judgement or go to heaven or hell or have any existence whatsoever. He determined this from genesis where god took the dirt and breathed life into it and it became a living soul.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I've sometimes wondered if the human race could progress technologically to a point of recreating people from genetic information for the purpose of punishing them, like Hitler, for instance. He committed suicide and that's not fair, so we'll remake him and punish him good. But what's the point of that? If that seems stupid, then why would god do it?

All of the above imply punishments either directly or indirectly.

If a believer do not conform the terms of the covenant [contract] within his abilities [where not forgiven] he will be punished in various degrees depending on the severity of the sins.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yes, these are the basic skills [among other critical ones] that they would need to develop.
It is dealing with and how to modulate pain to maintain equanimity.
These are the basic skills and foundation to reach the higher realms of well being [spirituality] holistically.
Good breathing techniques [as for any refine human actions] is one of the basic essential skills.

'higher realms'? this sounds very new agey and not ground in science. Why is higher good?