[TraineeHuman]

Personally, I find some of his concepts seem to be extremely fundamentalist. At the risk of sounding "holier than thou," I have to say that many fundamentalist notions are considered proved to be flat-out 100% invalid or nonsensical by all professional philosophers at universities other than, perhaps, the Vatican's.

In particular, it is simply a fact that the whole notion that there is or even can be some or any kind of battle between good and evil is simply nonsensical. (As any Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist can tell you, good and evil simply have no relationship to each other.)

I also have difficulty making much sense of the notion that there is some kind of battle over "human souls", other than in the political sense. You [I]are[I] your soul. As long as you have a physical body, it is part of your soul just as much as any other part of you. When you die, you separate not just from your physical body but also from the electromagnetic field your thoughts and feelings have created -- which is your personality, and is certainly not your soul. One of the agreed classic works of twentieth century philosophy is a book called The concept of mind, by Gilbert Ryle, who was philosophy chairman at Cambridge University. It is written in very simple language. (It was written 40 or 50 years ago.) If you read it you will see that Ryle proves that there isn't and cannot be such a thing as a "ghost in the machine" or "spirit in the body" -- unless the "ghost" or "spirit" is in some sense the whole universe. That is what your soul is. Nothing less. Can you handle the truth?

One trouble with fundamentalist notions is that they can lead to violence, with the excuse that one is "fighting evil". J.Krishnamurti (considered by many as a reincarnation of the Buddha) liked to point out that historically speaking, Christianity is and has been by far the most murderous and bloodthirsty of the major world religions -- by a very long margin indeed. I did some research, and found he was right.