[DRAFT]

To become a Christian, you must repent of sins. To do this, you need to understand what is sin and what is to repent. If you understand this, you are a philosopher above Emmanuel Kant.

Kant thought that for a thing to be in “good space” (he called it moral imperative), it should be a thing that would fit to be an universal law. Kantians believe that moral choices should be based on some (abstract) moral law. Meanwhile the New Testament teaches to live not under a law.

In more details: There are two kinds of morality: morality based on rules and morality based on outcome (if you know a third option, write to me, I don’t know such one). The morality based on rules has this kind of problem: In such a morality situations like this emerge: You followed all traffic rules but crushed a person, is that right? Crushing a person is an example of an outcome that may happen, even if all rules are followed. Or in a moral based on rules, it would be bad to kill Hitler, because it is, well, killing. This article explains the biblical philosophy on the two kinds of morality.

So, the morality of Kant and afterwards of most Christian preachers is based on rules. But I argue that love should be the main principle of morality.

So, back to the Bible: What is a sin? (Matthew 7:21) “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” We see from this that sin is to do contrary to God’s will. Obviously, God’s will is some standard of good: a comparison which things are better and which are worse. To enter the kingdom, need to do the same: choose good. So, in its broadest sense, a sin is just a choice of a thing that is worse than the perfect good choice (God’s will). If you think that God’s will is the same as His commandments, you fall in the same trap as these MPs who forbid prostitution: This leads only to it going illegal, without proper medical care, so inflating the number of people with STI. If you only follow rules, you may not have love.

(Jam. 4:17) “Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.” This means that God requires us to choose good always, every time we understand how to do it. I think, one-time violation of this rule (without repentance) warrants hell. In Christianity, there is no place at all for “freedom” to choose sin. Of course, we many times don’t know how to do good, in that case this verse does not apply. There are two kinds of sin: unintentional one (compatible with salvation) and willful one (not compatible with salvation!) That means an astonishing thing: If you even once deliberately choose not the best way to live, you are in danger of hell! This means that all your life need to be the “job” of doing good and nothing else: As a Jewish rabbi (Rabbi Nachman of Breslov) taught, when we sleep we by it serve God, because sleep gives us more power to do good.

You may respond: Jesus said: (John 14:15) “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Thus (if we take this your supposed position) the morality of the New Testament is indeed based on rules. You mean that you wouldn’t kill Hitler, because killing is forbidden, don’t you? I just trolled you by the question in the previous sentence. Speaking seriously, in the Bible there are both morality based on rules and morality based on outcomes. And I am going to explain you their intricate interconnection in words of Jesus. So allow me first to speak first of morality based on outcomes:

If you love somebody, you will do him/her good even without any commandments. And you may try to follow all the commandments and not to do good to a person who you don’t love. The New Testament teaches that without love all efforts are vain. Love is an universal adherence to God’s will.

In fact, in the world the word “love” is sometimes used in the reverse sense to its biblical meaning. For example, there is a movie A.I. Artificial Intelligence (or simply A.I.) is a 2001 American science fiction film directed by Steven Spielberg. Accordingly the plot of the movie, love of the robot is the inability to change the owner. Based on this logic, people say that they love their relatives (as one cannot change who are their relatives). But the Bible teaches: (1John 4:16) “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him.” To dwell in God means not to be limited to love to a limited set of loves ones, but to love all that in God. So, the love, as it described in that movie, would be true love, only if it were directed to God (not to the owner of the robot).

Simply put, love is the desire that everybody would, if possible, become richer (not necessarily in money only).

God demands from us love and any sacrifice that is less than love is not accepted: (1 John 4:8) “He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.”

Who try to follow commandments but don’t love, are called Pharisees and hypocrites. That should be clear for every Christian.

But God gave commandments and this is important. Now, having the commandment “don’t kill”, would you kill a maniac who is going to kill ten people, unless you kill him? Different Christians answer differently on this question. What do I advice in this regard, to kill or not such a maniac? The short answer is “It depends.” The long answer follows below.

I will describe my personal moral dilemma that I had, when I was young. My mother was strongly opposed to Jesus commandments (for the stupid reason that she didn’t like His manner of speaking, especially “True, true, I say to you…”). Because of this, I was punished for my commitment to the Gospel by hits by my head of a big frying pan thing. As the result I was going mad (temporarily). BTW, I will explain below how going mad from a hit to the head doesn’t contradict to the biblical concepts of soul and spirit, that, preachers say, our mind is located in. Going mad, I caused extreme harm. For example, after being driven mad, I raped somebody. For another example, I broke security against hackers in the entire Linux software industry by giving a deliberately (or, more exactly, how it was “decided” by the frying pan) wrong advice to an engineer. I also lost the opportunity to become a math professor because of my attempt to follow Jesus. How much more good deeds could I do, if I were a professor!

If I didn’t follow the commandments (but, for example, as was required by my mother, “just believe”), there would be no this rape and this wrong advice. There would be no such harm. If you think, not an animal, your mind should immediately raise the question: Why did Jesus give such commandments that may lead to harm? Jesus is perfect, so He knew it will produce such results. So, the harm produced by Jesus is deliberate. Why then He made the deliberate choice to produce this harm?

I am not an alone person who did such a harm under Jesus’s influence. Consider every Christian who opposed homosexuality, lost the job for this and became a homeless, a person who spreads diseases. That’s extremes, but in small things one would also lose, if holding tight the commandments.

I considered: Maybe, the commandments are mere advice rather than commands, or that commandments of Jesus were just for people of that time and his environment. I thought: Apparently, for example, the commandment “don’t commit adultery” was right only till invention of condom, wasn’t it? I would decide so, if not the special commandments that does not fall into this pattern (“was right in the past, but now it is outdated”), the commandment not to deny Jesus before sinners and the commandment not to be ashamed by Jesus. That commandment was causing harm in time of Jesus, too. It is not outdated, it is plainly wrong that Stephan has been killed. It is wrong now and it was the same way wrong in the time of Jesus.

Stop reading here and try to find an explanation: Why did Jesus give commandments that are known to regularly cause harm? And this is a harm not only to the follower of Jesus but also to these who are around.

I will tell you the explanation. I spent literally tens of years thinking about this without an explanation, and am sure that the explanation, that I finally found, is the only possible explanation.

Jesus directed us to receive illegal harm from others in order for us to receive a compensation from God. So far, so good. But why did He make us to harm others?

??Interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46 (sheep and goats): The growth of Christ happened when we suffered with Him, because one suffering with Christ receive compensation for their suffering that grows Christ’s “riches”. If a nation leaves somebody without help, he cannot remain an idealist and begins to spread materialism that is incompatible with suffering with Christ. For this reason this nation “dies” as Christians. The least of brothers of Jesus mentioned in this passage was me, because I was very big with minus (I used magic of thoughts to provoke terrorism and finally a thermonuclear was, so I was the worst magician of all). I, the least of the brothers, suffered with no food and beating, that made my stupid idealistic philosophy incompatible with practice and impossible. Therefore, I turned to new philosophy that is the end of the Gospel, making finally unable who hears me to suffer with Christ. Jesus told about separating nations rather than people. Now there is one nation due to Internet and English. Do therefore all the big nation go to the eternal fire? So, one not feeding a hungry imposes a limit to growth of Christ, making Him relatively “hungry” by placing end on idealism.

On the other hand, “if a seed falling to the ground does not die, it remains alone. If it die, it brings much fruit”. This proverb is almost literal: If somebody does not die for the gospel (Seed symbolizes the Gospel.), he will live eternally without sex and children, but who dies for gospel (accordingly my end of Gospel theology), he will become a god/elf/Nibirian, will have sex and septillions of children.

??let the will of the Father be

The problem is that Jesus set the trolley problem before His followers: a Christian example of this problem would be: If a Christian physician denies Jesus before an evil regime, that kills everybody confessing Jesus, the physician will survive and heal dying 10 people, 5 of which would accept Jesus. We have +4 in confessing Jesus, if the physician denies. Should the physician deny Jesus? Personally I had a similar but much greater magnitude problem: I was a young mathematician (already that time) having an important formula, that would advance civilization by trillions of dollars, + future perspectives and I would die confessing Jesus, because my mother hated Jesus and was ready to kill me. Should I have denied Jesus before that mad woman to save life of millions of people, who would benefit from greater world GDP?

So, we have a principle of a cross execution: I was strongly pulled in different directions by different moral indicators, like a person hanging on a cross is physically pulled in different directions what leads to suffering and death.

What is the solution of the trolley problem, that a Jesus’s follower should choose? The answer is unexpected: The best solution depends on whether you know why Jesus put certain moral orientations: If you don’t know why, you should choose following commandments (that physician would refuse to deny Christ); if you know why, you should choose following love, even if to do it you need to break commandments (that physician would deny Christ to save ten people from death).

Jesus calls himself an advocate in ??. (He says that Holy Spirit is another advocate, implying that Jesus is an advocate, too.) So, Jesus is a lawyer. He made us to be under illegal attack of others, in order for God’s court to pay us a compensation. Jesus just wants us to receive a God’s compensation for crimes committed against us. But harming ourselves, we harm others (like that physician taking lives of 10 more people together with his own life). Therefore, if we know the purpose of Jesus to harm us, we must stop doing so, because this way we would intentionally harm others, what is not a good deed. God’s court will consider these who we harmed this way our slaves (because they depend on our adherence on Jesus’s commandments), and therefore the physician would receive God’s compensation not only for his own death, but also for death of his 10 slaves, having so his soul 11 times more valuable.

So, before this revelation, when we slavishly followed Jesus’s commandments, our solution of the trolley problem was to avoid violating a commandment of Jesus, even if violating it leads to a greater good.

What is our new position on the trolley problem? We just should maximize good, in any way of our acting, that we can. We can, for example, kill to save more lives. Before we would do this too, but then we would lack a greater compensation in God’s court.

So, now love is our only guiding principle, no more commandments. (We should follow love, not because it is a commandment, but because it is our purpose.)

What does this means in practice? It means first and foremost to combat climate change, because it is one of the main problems of mankind.

When we were followers of Jesus’s commandments, most of us were restricted by (1Tim. 5:8) “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Now, we are free to follow love: If you need to kill your relatives by hunger in order to save climate, do it.

I have an important climate project. Donate for it (your donation will multiplied 2 times).

If you didn’t donate, it means that even now, when you were freed from commandments that hindered you from acting about love. If you don’t donate, this simply means that you don’t have and never had love. Go away to the hell, cursed.

Is stealing to donate to a climate or science project good or bad? If you are caught, it is bad, because having been caught you cannot anymore serve for climate. But if you are uncaught, it is good.

There is a fairly tale about “Koschei the Immortal” who carefully “keep his death”, that is protected himself from being killed. The state and banks do the reverse thing: keep me and others from having enough money to help them to live. If a bank would allow me to rob it, it would be good for the bank, because with money I would be able to publish my scientific research and help everybody including the bank that carefully keeps money against using them for good.

I also promised to explain what is soul (how then people go mad being hit by head, if the mind is located in the soul?) Soul can be understood either as warranty (that you’ll resurrect if die and will be healthy) for the body and the brain or as electromagnetic radiation of the brain. People don’t have any special “organ” to pray or read Bible, only the brain for all kinds of information (including the “spiritual” one). The soul (brain waves), however, keeps living in the outer space, both while a human is yet alive ((Eph. 2:6) “And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”, where Christ means all the electromagnetic radiation in the world: (Mt. 5:14) “I am the light of the world.”) and after the death for eternal life in the heavens.

If the seed of the Gospel died for you, freeing place for love, then well-done! You will be taken to the heaven where God Himself lives and have there sex with persons of opposite sex taken to the heaven and bring septillions of children.