Question for my fellow christians?

If a muslim, buddhist, hinduist etc tries to live according to their morals, are kind and lead a virtuous life, would they go to heaven?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. They are not part of the one true Church and do not worship the one true God. They are going to burn in hell forever unless they repent and be baptised into the faith.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's always been the problem with Christianity. It prioritizes belief in goodness over actually being good

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        It sought to find the world inherently evil and made the world 'inherently' evil.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      So just to be clear, a rapist and murderer who's been baptized Christian will go to to heaven over an ascetic Buddhist monk who gives away all of his possessions to the poor?

  2. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    How is religion paranormal? I hate you christcucks please stop invading my board.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Paranormal
      >Impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science
      Religion is inherently paranormal

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Spirituality and such things are obviously the mode of the paranormal. Religion is just the external, material means to do that for the masses who typically lack that mystical knowledge and experience. It is therefore a reaction to the claimed paranormal aspects of existence (and that is presuming a religious individual believes in the paranormal)

        Primarily religion is how a spiritually underdeveloped humanity maintains moral order and ensure basic guidance in life for all individuals. There are no higher principles about raising consciousness, using your personal power justly etc. but there are basic good and evil concepts like not murdering and so on, in christianity.

        I would say at one point in time, people may not have been so caked in the shit and mud metaphorically so as to need to have been told those things, but because they are- we have religion. I would argue human nature to be inherently good, and that evil is a secondary and an aberration in specific cases of people due to things like lack of knowledge and other limitations a person might have.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Religion is still rooted in supernatural belief systems which, by definition, makes it paranormal. That its institutions are mere mechanisms for social conditioning doesn't negate that

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Granted, but considering the clear supernatural affinity of earlier european religions over the generational trend that christianity created, it would be safer to assume that the ongoings of one of the Mithra sun cults in the time of Rome was probably more paranormal in nature than the spiritual life of people who's minds were shaped under christian dogma. Especially seeing as how they were not forced, but actively pursued and had no restrictions in the occult practices.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seem to hold the assumption that there is no esoteric or "deep" spiritual or paranormal aspect in christianity which is plainly false, at least if I am understanding what you say correctly. Hermits, monks and mystics exist in both the eastn and the west, and deep spiritual engagements are present in their practices.

            If what you resent is the lack of specific forms of pagan spiritualities, well, the explanation is very simple: Christianity holds a different cosmology and metaphysical system, thus, it makes use of different tools and seeks for different things. It would be rather brute to expect a christian mystic to seek counsel with daemons when, in christianity, said spirits are devious and evil. If this is something you disagree with, then your problem is with the christian worldview and thus it should be adressed first before criticizing its suppossed lack of paranormal elements.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            First thing first, the idea of a separation between "religion" and mysticism or spirituality is a largely western, specifically american divorce that finds little support outside the troubled western spirituality. All creeds, yes, christianity included, posses what we would call esoteric aspects or knowledge only revealed to an initiate in the depths of said faith, in the same manner that orthodox mystics would make use of resources, prayers and aims either unknown or not allowed to those outside a monastery.

            Second, that religion only concerns itself with the maintaining of a given moral order seems simply baffling to me. The concept of santification in the west and theosis in the east both involved advancement into a closer contact with God, a participation into the divine that involves the restoration of the soul to the state it was made for.

            Third, that there is little to no tradition that divorces the external from the internal in the way you are implying, save perhaps gnostics: In christianity was made to be a physical creature, thus, bodily actions do have spiritual effects in the same way that the contrary is also true. Partaking in the flesh and blood of Christ is a physical activity that involves spiritual, to some mystical changes, and in the other extreme the prayers and meditations of a mystic or monk involve specific, external gestures in order to facilitate the process for the soul.

            I think your argument is based on foundations that are rather dubious, and assume a dialectic between matter and spirit that is not recognized by many faiths or religions out there.

            I think the other anon is more saying that the difference between religion and spirituality is the former is concerned with legislating behavior while the latter is more concerned with actually forging an intimate connection to Divinity. Both are still based in the same belief system, those beliefs are just used for different respective ends

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just think that both are so interconnected that making such a sharp division, holding religion as inferior, will yield a fruitless effort at the end. Spiritual beliefs and practices will direct you towards religious habits and religious practices will in turn influence your spiritual state.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't say that view holds religion as inferior. If the latter spirituality turns out to be fantasy then religion is actually the force with far greater power. After all, it holds sway over billions of peoples lives.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            The words he used in his post do seem to describe religion as a crutch for a largely spiritually undeveloped humanity unable to grasp the mystic truths.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            The words he used in his post do seem to describe religion as a crutch for a largely spiritually undeveloped humanity unable to grasp the mystic truths.

            Religion on that mass level is one principle that is part of the whole of existence. Spiritual life is clearly personal, sensuous; Religious life impassioned and faithful. One internal the other external.

            I would say that both mirror eachother, and it is best to base one's spirituality on an expression that rings true to what is closest to their heart. In this day and age, I can say that now. In terms of christianity, I am opposed. One day I hope we can have an externality and a wider reality of a Truer expression of God here and not a demeaning and limiting one that the Abrahamic religions have provided.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >...and not a demeaning and limiting one that the Abrahamic religions have provided.

            As I said before, this is very obviously a metaphysical disagreement, an assertion that, if a given spiritual path can't be argued in favor of because it is a purely personal experience, then it is also arbitrary and rather useless.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do not have the same vision of a monk full of shame feeling sorry for himself walking a dirt path in medieval Europe and an initiate of the Brotherhood of the Serpent in Egypt going through one of the trials like, taming an alligator in the inside of a huge pyramid full of fine gold encrested statues of Gods and silk from the east.

            There is more of a respect of the Natural laws of reality in the latter. This is the True principle of God to me.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            > do not have the same vision of a monk full of shame feeling sorry for himself walking a dirt path in medieval Europe.

            And do you think this is all what christian mysticism is about? Sorry but Teresa de Avila, the eastern practitioners in Mount Athos and the Desert Fathers all related deep engagements with matters of spirit that go beyond mere repentance, even if repentance ought to be constant during the entire process. To reduce a rich and deep tradition in such a way seems rather offensive, even more when talking about spirituality and judging in favor of an older practice only because the egyptians were more showy.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is moreso the limitation of my time, my place and intellectual age. I mean no offense to people who are dedicated to spiritually advancing their souls and who encouraged that for others in their lifetimes.

            The reality is we are here now, and know more. I would rather look at examples like Apollonius.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          First thing first, the idea of a separation between "religion" and mysticism or spirituality is a largely western, specifically american divorce that finds little support outside the troubled western spirituality. All creeds, yes, christianity included, posses what we would call esoteric aspects or knowledge only revealed to an initiate in the depths of said faith, in the same manner that orthodox mystics would make use of resources, prayers and aims either unknown or not allowed to those outside a monastery.

          Second, that religion only concerns itself with the maintaining of a given moral order seems simply baffling to me. The concept of santification in the west and theosis in the east both involved advancement into a closer contact with God, a participation into the divine that involves the restoration of the soul to the state it was made for.

          Third, that there is little to no tradition that divorces the external from the internal in the way you are implying, save perhaps gnostics: In christianity was made to be a physical creature, thus, bodily actions do have spiritual effects in the same way that the contrary is also true. Partaking in the flesh and blood of Christ is a physical activity that involves spiritual, to some mystical changes, and in the other extreme the prayers and meditations of a mystic or monk involve specific, external gestures in order to facilitate the process for the soul.

          I think your argument is based on foundations that are rather dubious, and assume a dialectic between matter and spirit that is not recognized by many faiths or religions out there.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            The reality here in the context of this discussion is that a separation between religion and mysticism logically is one of definition. There isn't a difference in the sense of personal beliefs, practices and principles to live by, but there clearly is when it comes to the order of society and the philosophies embedded into the lives of people who follow those practices over generations. Many people in a community following dogma will try to change an individual there inclined to different practices.

            The idea of them being separated has been around a lot longer than the US. The Catholic church or God or whatever doesn't spy on you when you take a shit- t least they shouldn't.

            I concur with your second point, but its irrelevant. That is the only thing from a spiritually balanced perspective that is valuable in christianity, and even its moral stuff for the masses, is tainted in some way.

            You do not have the info on the Breath of fire or how to develop psychic awareness given in initiated christian mysticism but you can go insane and a useless schizo from practicing the things esoteric christianity shares so maybe that's good if that's what you believe is spiritually advanced. I would rather use the Ancient sources of knowledge that they have corrupted those practices from because they actually work for the purposes of getting closer to the actual principle of God. Maybe its because they haven't been near a israelites butthole- i don't know.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I would rather use the Ancient sources of knowledge that they have corrupted those practices from because they actually work for the purposes of getting closer to the actual principle of God.

            As I said in the previous post, this seems to me a metaphysical/cosmological disagreement more than a fact or argument against how effective christian mysticism is. One can hardly judge a mystical tradition separated from the truth claims it makes about the universe, and in this specific case christianity doesn't "corrupt" pagan practices simply because it holds a completely different, trinitarian cosmology uncompatible even with Platonism despite being the modern faith most closer to it.

            We can hardly reach an understanding without determining what is understood first as divine or principle of God, and from there moving on on why is christian tainted somehow.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            The measure of judgement against either the ancient rites or the christian ones thereafter, is their own self revealed result for the practitioners. So it is redundant to try and establish/assert its effectiveness like we're academics or something.

            On a wider "religion" level, I would only point to the historical examples. The ancient faiths "failure" to keep their societies intact was clearly a result of things other than their validity on a wider religious level of perceived strengths and weaknesses. They were destroyed and replaced.

            Religious or spiritual practice is personal by its nature, there are no middle men ultimately. Therefore I can not show you anything to your understanding least of all through a Oyish thread.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They were destroyed and replaced.

            Destroyed where and when? Historically the traditional pagan creeds of Rome had been in steady decline since well before Constantine and the christian dominance, and by the times of Julian, still paganism allowed to exist freely within the Empire, popular gods like Apollo were almost completely abandoned. People like Marcus Aurelius were not strange cases as much as signs of the growing separation between the intellectual elite and the popular faith and its mysteries, with the former leaning in favor of abstract, philosophical deities considered superior to the popular supersticions.

            Going even further, by the time christianity took hold on the Empire other asiatic faiths of monotheisticor henoteistic character were already worming their way into Europe and North Africa. Manichaeism, Mithras and even the egyptian mysteries were not traditional nor agreed with the cosmology of classic Rome, but represented intrusions into the decaying corpse of their old spirituality. I find hard to see this as christianity destroying when well before Christ won that victory they were replacing each other all the time.

            >Religious or spiritual practice is personal by its nature, there are no middle men ultimately.

            Then why are we talking about it? If the experience is merely personal with no way of being communicated or argued in favor for, then I would venture to say that it is useless to assert claims in public.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      What you really hate is your mom and dad, and it’s sad, you should try to cultivate a relationship with your family, it has spiritual benefits.

  3. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ultimately.
    Depend on the God.
    Humans are powerless in changing their own fate.
    No humans in the world can control "luck". Whoever can do it. I won't consider them a human.

  4. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I would say that it depends on God primarely and the individual, and that making particular judgements about people is not a good attitude to hold. However, still not being part of the body of Christ will no doubt endanger greatly your soul so it's better to convert.

  5. 12 months ago
    Samael

    No because they denied jesus is lord and they deny the father also.

  6. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    at the end of the day, only God knows.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *