/lit/ - Literature

>after death you are immediately judged and sent to heaven/hell/purgatory
>after time expires in the created universe, you are then pulled out of your judged state, back into your physical body (even though time does not exist in these post-death states)
>you are then judged again and sent back to where you just came from

Reminder that you are not in communion with the Catholic Church unless you agree with this dogma

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm

What is the purpose of Christianity if you will be saved no matter what you do

>But muh hell

If everyone is saved then hell is temporary, so at best Christianity speeds up salvation a bit

Refute this

believe a purely empathetic state is one of the hardest states for a human to achieve. I don’t mean feeling “bad” about something and experiencing concomitant issues of guilt, regret, contrition, etc. I’m talking about achieving a state where you truly understand and accept someone in THEIR own context without seeing them, even obliquely, as a piece in the tableau of life you’ve designed.

Even consummate empaths, I believe, would have trouble reaching a level of understanding that fully reaches, accepts and forgives, without doubt, judgment or hesitation, the internal and external forces that have shaped another’s experience.

One would have to relinquish preconceived concepts of “excuses” and eschew petty inclinations to moralize, to admonish or approbate, in order to see the things people do as things not done to oneself or others, but as expressions of an infinitely complicated, unknowable and untouchable self.

If we knew more about what others thought, we would know more about what it means to be human. We would be slower to anger and quicker to forgive.

>>16990822
>>16990822
Based, I am having the same experience. However allow some reflection on the imagery and structure, which imo is uniquely powerful in the bible. Recurrence of offerings, lambs and snakes all carry purpose, for instance note that in Leviticus the ritual of the scape goat is exactly half way in a perfectly symmetric chapter. This highlights the central theme of cleansing by banishment.

While the narrative is abhorrent, image and structure wise it has merit. Try to understand why in spite of all its slimely, greedy, materialistic torture it overcame (and destroyed) all alternatives. At least that is what I try to do. Ofcourse political violence plays a role, but nothing is built on violence alone.

I have also learnt to disregard the walls of text from christian fundementalists here. They are disconnected from any possible common ground and I believe they are desperately trying to convince themselves instead of the other.

I believe a purely empathetic state is one of the hardest states for a human to achieve. I don’t mean feeling “bad” about something and experiencing concomitant issues of guilt, regret, contrition, etc. I’m talking about achieving a state where you truly understand and accept someone in THEIR own context without seeing them, even obliquely, as a piece in the tableau of life you’ve designed.

Even consummate empaths, I believe, would have trouble reaching a level of understanding that fully reaches, accepts and forgives, without doubt, judgment or hesitation, the internal and external forces that have shaped another’s experience.

One would have to relinquish preconceived concepts of “excuses” and eschew petty inclinations to moralize, to admonish or approbate, in order to see the things people do as things not done to oneself or others, but as expressions of an infinitely complicated, unknowable and untouchable self.

If we knew more about what others thought, we would know more about what it means to be human. We would be slower to anger and quicker to forgive.

I believe a purely empathetic state is one of the hardest states for a human to achieve. I don’t mean feeling “bad” about something and experiencing concomitant issues of guilt, regret, contrition, etc. I’m talking about achieving a state where you truly understand and accept someone in THEIR own context without seeing them, even obliquely, as a piece in the tableau of life you’ve designed.

Even consummate empaths, I believe, would have trouble reaching a level of understanding that fully reaches, accepts and forgives, without doubt, judgment or hesitation, the internal and external forces that have shaped another’s experience.

One would have to relinquish preconceived concepts of “excuses” and eschew petty inclinations to moralize, to admonish or approbate, in order to see the things people do as things not done to oneself or others, but as expressions of an infinitely complicated, unknowable and untouchable self.

If we knew more about what others thought, we would know more about what it means to be human. We would be slower to anger and quicker to forgive.

How do we know we know things? Is it even possible? We do not have a point of reference to corroborate our truths.

Is language merely a flawed tool for apprehending our world? Or are epistemological pursuits aimless and, moreover, misguided?