But adults do not have all the answers, while childhood does not require answers in the first place. The change between the two is arguable in most need of spiritual support but at the same time is the most difficult stage to apply such support. — Benj96

One way to view a prophet like Jesus or Buddha is that they were democratically elected as God. For example early Christians voted for Jesus simply by converting to Christianity. When we view Jesus as a spirit rather than a human then it can be harder to visualise Him because the physical universe is almost incomprehensible. If Jesus was God in the sense of a creator of the natural world then it implies that our understanding of Jesus would have to be expanded exponentially in an afterlife. So calling Jesus the Son of God might be a self-fulfilling prophecy in relation to your own sphere of the world. After all each democracy can vote in a different president much like each major religion espouses a different God. Applying Christian values to a democracy can be challenging when there are simultaneous problems confronting society as a whole. For example it's rewarding to be forgiving individually. Yet when a court gives a suspended sentence it can be tempting to feel aggrieved simply because we often don't trust the government on other issues like poor infrastructure. In other words all judges are doomed to have some conflicts of interests simply by having a residual level of emotionality. Thus we are effectively multitasking in dealing with lots of harms where stress can be compounded.

A secular interpretation of religion is as a realpolitik version of spirituality. So people with unique metaphysical beliefs can compromise some of their principles in the name of pragmatism and deference to the group. A trouble is that religious people can be so passionate in their faith that they can disagree quite strongly with one another. So pantheism could also be viewed as a temporary religion for those who still want to return to their faith in the distant future. For example Catholicism makes a great effort in sermons for children and adults but tends to overlook the adolescent years. Perhaps teenagers are seen as too temperamental. However our teenage years can be very fundamental in how we view ourselves later in life. Consequently relying on parents to bring teens to mass rather than to appeal to them directly might be too much of a gamble if they don't return to their faith when they're elderly.

If you didn't believe in a shared afterlife then perhaps it's still possible to hope for a memory reel of your past life at death. Or perhaps if your soul hears prayers after death then the more you agree to them the more you'll see a symbolic representation of an afterlife.

Reeling In The Years Add | RTÉ

A physicalist interpretation of the Christian doctrine of total forgiveness is that in forgiving a repentant person you're also helping to reassure those who've forgiven others. So there'll invariably be lots of people who can't afford to be retaliatory simply because they're deprived. Thus some people have no choice but to be forgiving simply because they can't physically act on a grudge even if they wanted to. So trying to help other forgiving people by being forgiving yourself might be imperfect if you're not forgiving the repentant person directly.

We could say that poor people who are under far more pressure than middle-class people can be viewed as more virtuous simply be resisting the temptations of evil. Christianity implies that wealth is a sin but this can also be reversed to say poor people who withstood natural and human evil can simply be rewarded more than rich people in an afterlife.

An alternative way to view dualism is that our skeletal system is unfeeling and that our sense of body exists only in the muscles. This bodily dualism contrasts with brain dualism in that if we felt the skeleton directly we'd feel much heavier.

One way to view lucid dreaming is that the light we see during the day has slowed down considerable. Then our mind moves faster than a slowed down speed of light when we flick past visual scenes during sleep. The speed of light is variable relative to our own dreaming mind but not between people in the physical world. The speed of light is the speed of gravity. Yet we don't feel gravity when we're asleep since we're paralysed. Thus if gravity is reduced then perhaps the speed of light is reduced internally.

"We consider the special case in which there is no interaction inside the closed timelike curve, referred to as an open timelike curve (OTC), for which the only local effect is to increase the time elapsed by a clock carried by the system. Remarkably, circuits with access to OTCs are shown to violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, allowing perfect state discrimination and perfect cloning of coherent states. The model is extended to wave packets and smoothly recovers standard quantum mechanics in an appropriate physical limit. The analogy with general relativistic time dilation suggests that OTCs provide a novel alternative to existing proposals for the behavior of quantum systems under gravity."
journals aps org

If Christians were duty bound to forgive others in the afterlife then the primary countermeasure against evil might be vigilance in the material world. If we'd to rule out vengeance and supernatural hell then we'd have to ensure that all of our dependents were as safe as possible. We might need to be slightly more defensive and pre-emptive in our spiritual outlook against criminals. If anyone looked creepy then we'd be forced to either avoid the person or be polite to them and help them avoid being tempted into evil. If poor people weren't as heavily rewarded in heaven due to materialism then the middle-class might feel more responsibility to help them enjoy life to the fullest through charity. Christianity often looks like a world policeman as if it were a superpower like America. However Christians tend to help fellow Christians more than helping those from other faiths and so their level of objectivity might not be as absolute as a scientific afterlife.

My blog isn't exceptional at any single thread but is very good only in how it combines a lot of good threads. Perhaps I'd need to describe one thread in more detail so as to have a thorough thread like anti-realism. What if Michael actually thought the thoughts in his inner mind were sometimes connected to the airflow through his throat and nose? So what I might have to say is simply that air can involuntarily activate the voicebox when you focus on it intensely and impersonally. Then every breath is capable of producing rapid thoughts if you interpret a muffling sound in a way that makes sense to you. Then your thoughts would be faster than natural and dependent on your breathing rate. Every breath would interrupt your thinking and accelerate them afterwards.

One reason it's easy to be confused about Christianity is that we're forced to ignore large swathes of its militant history. For example it's easy to ignore the period of early Christianity to the early 20th century. What's particulary annoying is that some colonial Christians might even have appeared more devout in their faith despite their immorality compared to modern Christians. Perhaps a mitigating factor is that many conquistadors and aristocrats were motivated by nationalism rather than religion. In other words religion may well have been fig leaves for medieval crimes like the inquisition of Protestants in regal Europe. Another criticism of Christianity is its temperamental attitude towards feminism. You might say that this is mirrored in the very concept of asexuality among Catholic clergy. It can be an ambiguous gesture of not wanting to be bossy towards women or else it could imply a dislike of women for their romance. One way to view the historical crimes of Christianity is through moral relativism. In other words the way they took Christianity as the absolute truth was itself a relativistic gesture towards non-Christians.

John Wick Scene: Little Russian Church

One way to understand the extreme complexity of the brain would be as of each neuron could be quickly pressed twice for a different command. This would be like a video game controller where pressing a button twice can activate a different movement compared to the first push. Then the brain could look multiple times more complex then it already is!

I'd a dream a few months ago in which I was travelling around an Indian city for a tennis tournament. I was confused by various return flights and tried to get buses back into the city. It was just a short dream but I never fully related pantheism to Hinduism simply because they seemed like polar opposites. Hinduism was nominally polytheistic but seemed to concede that each of their Gods were all manifestations of an ultimate God named Brahman. One way to relate this to pantheistic logic is that each polytheistic God was an unconscious dream of the conscious God Brahman. Although my interpretation of Hinduism is a mere metaphor! In one sense Hinduism is the only major religion that has shamanic components. Yet they still interpret such mysticism in a holistic way.

One way we could interpret hell is that God might not throw anyone there directly. Yet if a God knows everything about the inner workings of a person then perhaps He'd simply force them to be truly sorry. So if the person can't emotionally engage in remorse then perhaps they'd put themselves in hell until they were better able to repent. An afterlife might always be difficult to describe in material logic given the absurdity of evil. Yet every form of evil is countered by another form of evil. For example let's take the example of war rape. A male misogynist would end up being engaged in vicarious misandry when we apply a hatred of women to wives that aren't theirs.

Keeping your thoughts pure is often an important component in religions. Perhaps from a moral perspective the only redeeming factor of perversion is that it directly exposes an already overconfident and bad mindset. For example a truly self-secure mindset would never try to form perverted thoughts to feel even more confident. So those who are vulnerable to such vices likely have previous flaws in how they regulate their subconscious emotions. In order to resist perversion you'd need to first assess your thought patterns. An absurd version of happiness might only expose an absurdity in how we unconsciously view ourselves.

One way to tame a fear in reincarnation is that our unconscious mind might need an affinity for the unconscious being in our next life. So we might not be completely different to the person in our next life even though there might be a wide spectrum of disagreement. Perhaps if there's a vocal pantheist in Scotland in 100 years time then you never know if that was me!

One way we could assess the language of ancient religious texts is through amnesia. For example most amnesiac patients can't speak coherently because they're not sef-aware. Yet people who are fully absorbed into the present moment and can control their thoughts through spirituality could technically be dubbed amnesiac. Perhaps ancient generations had far more control over their unconscious minds without exactly interpreting experiences as dreamy.

A trouble with emotional versions of anti-realism is that natural scenery could produce subjective happiness on a wider spectrum than consciously possible. That is to say our subconscious isn't geared to reward scenery like fields of flowers with intense hedonism. We're simply unable to enjoy our own nature spirits to their fullest given the complexity of the natural world.

Perhaps to fully understand our own mind we'd nearly be so dissociated as to be dead! Maybe the mind could be viewed as existing outside our perception of the physical world rather than just the brain.

Perhaps heaven is much like flying away from your body; the better behaved you were the higher you go! Or maybe Christianity developed primarily to fight against evil rather than to create an afterlife.

An amoral God is neither good nor evil. Thus an amoral God that sent you to hell would be unlikely to throw you away for a very long time simply because He wouldn't be evil. An amoral God might resemble a rich capitalist or an impersonal spirit so to speak. An advantage of such a passive God is that evil people could be ignored as natural evil. After all evil isn't a concept in physics. For example we don't expect anyone to go to jail if we have a tummy bug even if it's just as painful as a robbery. However an amoral God might be beyond our comprehension given the infinities of infinities!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 4K HDR - The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Religion doesn't actually have to present detailed arguments to compete with a post-grad maths book. Religion merely needs to present analytical arguments to compete with secondary school science books to persuade youngsters! We'll probably be bogged down by mysteries all our life but some of our beliefs are hardened before we reach maturity.

Yes they both explain with different methods but they can both approach the actual Truth (existence/universe) as it actually is without bias and contradictions between selves. — Benj96

Evil people can have extremely violent mindsets but they often don't blaspheme simply because they're not aware of God. Yet if evil people wanted to have violent self-talk towards God then there's not much that could stop them. In other words the fact that some of them don't blaspheme during their life might be an accident. So if evil people are capable of being forgiven in the afterlife then both deeds and faith would be relevant.

"The pen/spoken is mightier than the sword" so to speak. — Benj96

A difficulty with faith is that the mind is partially deterministic such that your subconscious mind forces you to reconcile conflicting beliefs. So religious people who are exposed to a lot of science are often forced to analyse their faith to the same degree of logic. A little problem is that while religion is very intelligent it's self-referential to some extent. Thus faith directly clashes with materialism since the material world is more observable. Religion would almost need to investigate science solely to present religious claims more analytically. Otherwise they'd need to conceptualise the afterlife more vividly in order to sway agnostics.

We're sometimes pressured to limit idealism in order to reconcile it with science and prevent tribal divisions. So an argument of last resort is that the material world is so unreal that it's nearly impossible for an idealist to be even more of an anti-realist. So if we truly viewed matter as being of the mind we'd be forced to concede that it's so mentally complicated as to be physical.

One difference between Jesus and a stereotypical war hero is that He wasn't a vigilante type of person. In other words Christianity presents itself as being at war against evil even though it's not a militant type of religion. So when we apply this reasoning to the afterlife it might be upsetting to think that Christianity might actually forgive repentant serial killers. Strangely enough the only consolation for us is that they likely won't repent such that they wouldn't go to heaven! It's difficult to know how much the death of Jesus on the cross is scientifically relevant as a divine sacrifice given just how many others have died in warfare. Yet it's hard to know if the reason many virtuous soldiers gave up their lives was as a result of the inspiration of Jesus. Achilles was seen as a demi-God precisely because of his skill on the battlefield. So the benevolence of Jesus appears to be of a slightly different kind.

Perhaps a meditative version of Christian prayers would focus more on the underlying message than the history much like an R&B song(!):

T.I. - Live Your Life ft. Rihanna

But what I reach as conclusion is that meditation cannot be connected with Jesus because with the act of meditation we are separating ourselves from any kind of identity.
So, we can only "pray" to Jesus not meditate about him. — javi2541997

That's true from a purist perspective on Christianity. Yet what if there was an atheist who didn't really want an afterlife but still found peace in certain Christian doctrines? Are they allowed to meditate to Christianity? It's better than nothing!

"Interfaith dialogue refers to cooperative, constructive, and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions (i.e. "faiths") and/or spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional levels. It is distinct from syncretism or alternative religion, in that dialogue often involves promoting understanding between different religions or beliefs to increase acceptance of others, rather than to synthesize new beliefs." (Wiki)

One way to understand pantheism in the context of Christianity would be to think what would happen if you mixed Buddhism with Christianity. What would happen if we meditated to Jesus instead of praying to Jesus? If we wanted to understand panentheistic Christianity then perhaps we could view the religion in light of its Jewish ancestry. Christianity and Islam differ quite a lot when it comes to the afterlife. Yet it's possible to compare the two culturally when it comes to earthly life. So how would we feel if Christianity were like a social bond between the individual and the community? It might be easier to understand the trinity in Christianity if we were to contrast it with the different versions of Hindu's God.

"Multiple religious belonging, also known as double belonging, refers to the idea that individuals can belong to more than one religious tradition. While this is often seen as a common reality in regions such as Asia with its many religions, religious scholars have begun to discuss multiple religion belonging with respect to religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

"According to Baháʼí teachings, religion is revealed in an orderly and progressive way by a single God through Manifestations of God, who are the founders of major world religions throughout history; Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad are noted as the most recent of these before the Báb and Baháʼu'lláh. Baháʼís regard the world's major religions as fundamentally unified in purpose, though varied in social practices and interpretations. The Baháʼí Faith stresses the unity of all people, explicitly rejecting racism, sexism, and nationalism. At the heart of Baháʼí teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes."

Family Guy- Passion of the Christ 2

But you are missing an important point: faith. Believe or not believe in God depends on faith. — javi2541997

There are many atheists in Asia but if we went centuries back in time we could say that they were all descended from meditative beliefs like Buddhism in China. I don't say that as a fact but merely as an interpretation. So no matter how much you or your society reject God, you are still influenced by the genes of religious ancestors. There simply were no materialists before the dawn of science. "Survival of the fittest" in previous millenia meant you'd to be religious or transcendent in some sense because that was the culture you were born into. So in a purely speculative way an impression of an afterlife could be internalised through genes. Would you put yourself in heaven if you could externally assess your past life once you had died? After all the genetics of a species takes a very long time to change. Such far-fetched ideas might help if you're trying to reconcile solipsistic pantheism, transcendent religion and non-conscious science all into one theory! If your mind expanded after you died, would you be able to excuse your past crimes as "work"?!

John Wick (2/10) - Noise Complaint (2014)

I was watching a thriller on TV and was almost on edge by the mere visuals and cinematography angles rather than the actual narrative! Sometimes it can be dreamy when the perspectives shift rapidly between first, second and third person camera positions. I found the way the actors' faces can be really close-up to the screen quite amusing when the previous shots were impersonal glances at the carraige! It almost creates a rhythm of time where viewers can be immediately absorbed into the high-octane tone of the film. This dizzy effect is wonderful if you're able to follow the story. Athough it might be mildly disorienting if you fail to understand the intensity of the action sequences.

'The tech-savvy Cameron, who helped pioneer high-def digital techniques in 2004 when he shot Michael Mann’s Collateral, decided to exploit the ceiling of the train car where Vera Varmiga’s Joanna challenges Neesom’s ex-cop Michael MacCauley to hunt down bad guys during his afternoon commute from Manhattan. This “train” was in fact a 30-ton set perched atop wheels, undergirded by a giant hydraulic jack and located inside a Pinewood Studios soundstage in England.

“I designed this custom camera rig that travels down the center of the car, but instead of moving along a track on the floor, it travels on the ceiling,” Cameron explains. Using Alexa Mini Arri cameras, a Stabileye Stabilized Head and Z Axis Pan device, Cameron automated the rig to move up, down and sideways as it tracked the action. “We could follow Liam in one direction down the center of the aisle, then move the camera to ‘arm’ around him and chase him back the other way, tracking over the other passengers’ heads as they sat in their seats,” he says. “We wouldn’t have been able to do that with a Steadicam.”'
https://www.motionpictures.org/2018/01/commuter-dp-replicated-new-york-train-uk-soundstage/

The Commuter Best Scene - Train Crash

'Don't expect to laugh much during Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice. According to a report on the movie news site HitFix, Warner Bros. has a "no jokes" policy when it comes to DC Comics movies... An occasional joke that fits into the tone of the film and isn't forced can work quite well, as Marvel Studios has proved.'
https://comicbook.com/movies/news/warner-bros-reportedly-has-a-no-jokes-policy-with-batman-v-super/

What if I do not pray to Jesus? Am I a deluded patient too? — javi2541997

Well let's imagine that Jesus somehow hallucinated both speaking to "God the Father" and resisting the devil. The mere fact that other people wholeheartedly endorsed Him meant that He must have been more confident in identifying such "hallucinations". This meant that He may have literally created an entire world of His own by cementing His "dreams". For example we can see how complex Middle Earth is from JRR Tolkien and the author didn't even have anyone praying to him!

If we can detect consciousness in the brain through correlations, then what if consciousness itself can work through indirect physical correlations? For example if the brain altered the rate of your heart then your thoughts would be synced to a new rhythym. In other words consciousness might be able to create its own patterns along a repeating rate of time. Each complete biological or neurological "circuit" as it were would create a unique flow of time that could be ignored or listened to. Then the physical system would be self-sufficient without needing conscious energy. This might be thought of as "micro time-travel".

"The monks were using a yoga technique known as g Tum-mo, which allowed them to enter a state of deep meditation and significantly raise their body heat, some as much as 17 degrees (Fahrenheit) in their fingers and toes. After the first sheets were dry, they were replaced with new wet sheets by attendants. Each monk was required to dry 3 sheets over the course of several hours. In other contests held during cold Himalayan nights, the person who dries the most sheets before dawn is considered the winner.The heat generated through g Tum-mo is only a by product of a process designed to correct misconceptions of reality as defined by Buddhism."
https://www.buzzworthy.com/monks-raise-body-temperature/

What if we viewed the temptation of the devil when Jesus wandered the desert for over a month as arising from within Jesus? Then we'd interpret this tale in a far more mystical and dissociated way. Whether or not the devil had an extenal mind he was at least inside the perception of Jesus in a way that wasn't so for others. After all if God is the giver of life then He could probably create beings just in His own perception and outside of His own cognition! I'm not sure what the devil would mean back in that era unless it was a secret plan to overthrow the Roman rule of Israel! Despite atheistic arguments of Jesus being schizophrenic it might still be worthwhile from a religious standpoint to play devil's advocate. One core difference between Jesus and a deluded patient is that Jesus had lots of people praying to Him. This does sound a bit arbitrary from a scientific perspective but let's make an economic analogy. An entrepreneur might take risks out of a delusion of grandeur. Yet if bankers trust him or her with loans then this person really could become a millionaire. Likewise the mere fact that a prophet like Jesus had so many worshippers may have "materialised" the vision of that individual. Jesus was a poor person yet He turned out a billionaire in terms of the future adherents of the faith. A difference between science and religion is that scientists tend not to be militantly opposed to rival scientists as was the case in ancient religious wars! Quantum physicists versus general relativists will be in the boxing ring at 2pm!

I think religious scholars are correct in using scientific and cultural analogies for religious terms. The only downside of using metaphors is that they could be misunderstood if they're not thoroughly explained. For example the concept of an unending entity might always have been known when the holy texts were written. However the mathematical concept of infinity is more recent. So when we say God is omni-virtuous we risk mistaking a technical infinity with an incomprehensibly high level of magnanimity. Some agnostics might be more comfortable briefly praying to God in private rather than worshipping God. God if He exists might have perfect excuses for the problem of evil. Although this logical possibility doesn't mean that everyone is capable of endless trust or gratitude for such a God. I differ from Bob Geldof in that Lord seems like a reassuring and polite title for a being who is allegedly going to save your soul during the vulnerability of death. I wouldn't be as comfortable saying it to an aristocrat given our egalitarian culture of democracy. Nonetheless the "Divine Right of Kings" might be tolerable for a truly benevolent monarch if it applied to the afterlife rather than to a materialistic being!

(2:20) " The Supreme Being? What? Are we living in Star Wars?... Lord? Is it Lord of the Rings? The language is so weird."
Bob Geldoff on his Atheism - The Meaning of Life with Gay Byrne

I'd never dispute the honesty of atheists in asserting their disbelief in religion but is there a residual level of transcendence in their materialistic claims? The universe is itself an amoral and near-infinite source of energy that exceeds our comprehension. This orientation towards the possibility of future discovery is itself a mild form of mysticism in the present day. Science asserts we all share a physical world even though this isn't the only logical possibility. I fully accept that many atheists oppose supernatural claims about an afterlife or historical miracles. However there is an unconscious element of God being used in multiple philosophical problems rather than just ethics or life after death. For example if God doesn't exist and the universe openly tolerates the horror of genocides, then why would the universe care about your sense of self, your deterministic brain or your free will? We don't want to be paranoid by visualising an evil demon controlling everyone's faith. Nonetheless we must be capable of analysing such a viewpoint in order to assess science's ability to handle problems in metaphysics. Science must consider not only an amoral universe but also the the threat of an evil universe. Otherwise science would be relying on faith to reject an evil demon(to use the imagery of Descartes). If the universe determined that you should be murderer, what capacity does a conscious being have to rebel against such a faith? Perhaps faith in a spirit of benevolence is a helpful start for some people even if they don't go so far as to believe in God.

Criminals can sometimes try to manipulate technicalities in the court system. However what if they tried the same with divine judgement? For example what if they made a pact to be remorseful when they retired even if they still planned to commit crimes beforehand. Perhaps we could say that evil is so intoxicating that if they tried to deceive themselves through "postdated" apologies then they simply wouldn't psychologically be able to apologise to God sincerely.

If we view prehistoric people as being less self-aware then it might be possible to say that God "found" the universe rather than created it. In other words our high level of comprehension about the world around us might be because ancient people discovered different versions of God. Perhaps God would be the creator of our shared conscious realm instead of being a creator the physical world.

Ironically it might be acceptable from a religious point of view for an atheistic convert to view God as an imaginary friend. A collective imaginary friend is forced to comply with certain limitations in behaviour. Religions don't really present God as always being in the material world where a prophet like Jesus is said to be in the afterlife. So it's still consistent to view God as an imaginary friend in this life and as a real entity if you reach your afterlife!

"Leave Jesus alone? Don't cry! We've all got imaginary friends; I've just grown out of mine."
Jimmy Carr - Funny religious clip on the late late show

Whatever about original sin, there might still be an argument that people are born atheists. Death often seems a million miles away for young children. Then the churches would have to go out of their way to appeal to young people. Each religion doesn't have a separate set of genes to identify their children! Relying on agnostic or lapsed youths to convert during midlife is a high-risk strategy. Firstly if there's an accident or grief of some kind then they'd be left wholly unprepared. Secondly the Catholic Church is spared a lot of competition. Hinduism and Buddhism aren't overly concerned about western conversions given the sheer size of their own populations. Nonetheless a complacent attitude might lead to a permanent decline in mass attendence.

"Hozier criticises the Christian idea that babies are born with original sin and must be cleansed of this through a baptism ritual to which they haven't consented."
https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/watch-hozier-criticises-baptism-and-the-catholic-church-in-meaning-of-life-with-gay-byrne-trailer-512833

For example if there's such commotion about the inability of women to become priests then why not make mass from nuns in a convent just as ritualistic for the laity as a mass at a priestly church?

"Deacons may proclaim and preach the word of God and distribute Holy Communion that was consecrated at a Mass previously. A religious sister, brother, or nun may also lead a celebration outside of Mass and also distribute Holy Communion consecrated at another Mass."
https://zippyfacts.com/can-deacons-or-nuns-say-mass-when-there-is-no-priest/

Even if religious people were to believe in hell then there'd really have to be safeguards against an abuse of power. For example if an evil soul were confined to a jail cell in hell then they'd probably need a back-up option of "quantum suicide". This would prevent an overthrow of personal freedom if the evil soul were subject to endless persecution.