The apostle Paul himself states that if the benefits of what is to come in the afterlife (the resurrection of the dead and eternal union with God) is not a fact then the Christian faith as well all other religions are just as many have said "the opiate of the masses" and a waste of time

It seems we've found some common ground.

Many of the societal benefits of Christianity can be obtained in other ways but there are some very wonderful benefits to being part of a good church or community of fellow believers, which will function as an extended family. One example is that many of the young ladies in my church have sacrificed their time to give my wife and I free babysitting out of a desire to server and care for us.

All of the benefits of community and altruism can be obtained in other contexts, many of which do not have the insular, xenophobic nature of many Christian churches (particularly the fundamentalist ones) or the habits of insisting their followers accept the official views on how to vote, what to think on certain topics, how to conduct themselves with regard to their own private lives, etc. In addition, when these organizations expect donations of money and time, they are almost always direct and up-front about it. I'm not sure why you think this gets churches points.

As for citing Bible verses, why would you expect that to be persuasive to people who don't believe the Bible is anything more than a book created by fallible humans for human reasons?

The apostle Paul himself states that if the benefits of what is to come in the afterlife (the resurrection of the dead and eternal union with God) is not a fact then the Christian faith as well all other religions are just as many have said "the opiate of the masses" and a waste of time
Many of the societal benefits of Christianity can be obtained in other ways but there are some very wonderful benefits to being part of a good church or community of fellow believers, which will function as an extended family. One example is that many of the young ladies in my church have sacrificed their time to give my wife and I free babysitting out of a desire to server and care for us.

I have included a couple of verses from Paul to help support the point
In Romans 18
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

And in 1 Corinthians 15
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

The

Whilst it's true that the OT recounts graphically some quite horrific battles in Jewish history, AFAIK nowhere in the Bible is there a general command to us to commit atrocities.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods... thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him. But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

That is one example of literally dozens I could cite, some even more graphic and horrific, and all of them commanded or endorsed by God. For more examples, see my essay "A Book of Blood".

Your line of argument has switched from neighbour=Jew to neighbour=Christian; neither is right from a Christian point of view. We use neighbour in the widest sense.

Jesus used it as the Jews used it, to mean other Jews. Xians co-opted the idea. You haven't found some sort of gotcha moment. That you misinterpret now doesn't mean that was the intent.

Actually Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees who were very legalistic and was in turn criticised for e.g. healing on the Sabbath.

Yeah, there are lots of contradictions. Jesus was very strict about the laws when it suited the author's purpose and not when it didn't.

Also he saved the prostitute from being stoned.

You didn't know? That story is made up. It's not original to the author. It was included much later.

But it takes a real stretch of interpretation to suggest that Jesus supported the stoning of children. I don't think many Christians believe that!

That most Xians are ignorant of their own scriptures doesn't change what is in them. Try Matt 15:3-7 and Mark 7:9-13.

Your reference to peace and a sword appears to me to be about judgement, not an exhortation for us to commit violence.

It wasn't meant to. It was a response to your comment about Xians being called to be peacemakers.

For references to why I think we're called to be peacemakers, see Mt 5:9 and Jas 3:18. I think that's a good thing, don't you?

I never said that the Bible doesn't have some good things in it. Do unto others is in the Bible, for instance. To think that the Bible is a book about being good, however, is in error. One can only come to that conclusion if one ignores vast tracts of the book. Blessed are the peacemakers? Well, blessed are the mourners too, but Xians are supposed to be happy, aren't they? Blessed are the poor in spirit? That doesn't make sense. Peacemakers who sow a harvest in peace will burn in hell if that is not what god chooses to have them do at that point in time.

Your line of argument has switched from neighbour=Jew to neighbour=Christian; neither is right from a Christian point of view. We use neighbour in the widest sense.

Actually Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees who were very legalistic and was in turn criticised for e.g. healing on the Sabbath. Also he saved the prostitute from being stoned. I am happy to have an open-minded discussion about OT laws and sentencing separately. But it takes a real stretch of interpretation to suggest that Jesus supported the stoning of children. I don't think many Christians believe that!

Your reference to peace and a sword appears to me to be about judgement, not an exhortation for us to commit violence.

For references to why I think we're called to be peacemakers, see Mt 5:9 and Jas 3:18. I think that's a good thing, don't you?

That he said they are the most important doesn't change the fact that he also said that all the old commandments should still be followed, and he was pretty strict about them. Those old commandments include stoning children for being disobedient to their parents. Funny how you don't seem to remember that part.

And, your rememberence of the OT is pretty bad. Read Deuteronomy 13 for instance. And, nowhere are Xians called to be peacemakers. Whatever gave you that idea? Jesus himself says that he comes not to bring peace but with a sword, or some such nonsense.

Whilst it's true that the OT recounts graphically some quite horrific battles in Jewish history, AFAIK nowhere in the Bible is there a general command to us to commit atrocities. In company I hope with all committed Christians I believe we are called to be peacemakers. HTH.

This does not excuse religious authorities of any persuasion when they have misused or misapplied their core beliefs.