The Idea of Salvation

Originally posted by darvlay
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?

If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?

Yes, I think you are on to something here. If you would somehow be able to destroy religion from the face of the earth the world would magically become a peaceful utopia!!!!! Urekia man, you've figured it out what is at the root of our ills. Then again, Stalin beat you to the punch. Its just to bad he was'nt able to finish the job.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, I think you are on to something here. If you would somehow be able to destroy religion from the face of the earth the world would magically become a peaceful utopia!!!!! Urekia man, you've figured it out what is at the root of our ills. Then again, Stalin beat you to the punch. Its just to bad he was'nt able to finish the job.

I did not at all imply that religion should be destroyed from the face of the Earth. Learn to read.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think the Santa Claus aspect of religion is pretty essential to its success
as a moral guide. I mean the 'he sees when you are sleeping, he knows
if you're awake' aspect of things. The success of the human race depends
on most people doing reasonable good most of the time. However,
larger propinquity group size means slightly deviant behavior can t ...[text shortened]... other people
towards severe violence.

Just adding my two cents.
Nemesio

Good point, Nemesio. Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by darvlay
I did not at all imply that religion should be destroyed from the face of the Earth. Learn to read.

But you are suggesting destroying the theology of those religions that center their beliefs in the idea of salvation. If so, you would be altering the religion to please you, thus changing it to varying degrees. You may argue you would not be destroying that particular religion, however, it would no longer be the same religoin that we speak of.

I still contend that with or without religion/salvation the problem persists. The acrimony has little to do with religion and everything to do with the condition of the human heart. The heart problem was here in the beginning and is still the same today.

Originally posted by whodey
But you are suggesting destroying the theology of those religions that center their beliefs in the idea of salvation. If so, you would be altering the religion to please you, thus changing it to varying degrees. You may argue you would not be destroying that particular religion, however, it would no longer be the same religoin that we speak of.

No, it wouldn't be the same religion. But it would still be a religion. Your post implied that I wanted to eradicate religion off the face of the Earth a la Stalin. That is obviously not the case. Don't be a jerk.

Originally posted by darvlay
No, it wouldn't be the same religion. But it would still be a religion. Your post implied that I wanted to eradicate religion off the face of the Earth a la Stalin. That is obviously not the case. Don't be a jerk.

But to be fair, did Stalin then not institute a religion all of his own? Granted, there was not God at the center of his religion, but it was a religion based upon secularism all the same. The state became the church and the Pope was Lenin where he was embalmed so that the masses could go worship and pay tribute.

Originally posted by whodey
I think he may be the most misunderstood person I have ever met. 😛

St Matthew 7:3-5

Instead of taking pot shots at me like a coward, why don't you address
the claim in question. You did this in the other thread, distracting from
the specific issue at hand by these far flung claims like 'You don't love
Jesus' or 'You hate the Gospel message.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
But to be fair, did Stalin then not institute a religion all of his own? Granted, there was not God at the center of his religion, but it was a religion based upon secularism all the same. The state became the church and the Pope was Lenin where he was embalmed so that the masses could go worship and pay tribute.

How is this relevant at all to the question I have asked?

I am not in the slightest suggesting that all religions be replaced with secularism and false idol worship or that any beliefs be forced upon the populace in a tyrannical fashion. The question I have posed merely asks you to consider the idea of religion as a personal choice and moral guide and not as a means of salvation. Nemesio has kindly posted an intelligent counter-opinion. You're just being obtuse and confrontational.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I still contend that with or without religion/salvation the problem persists. The acrimony has little to do with religion and everything to do with the condition of the human heart. The heart problem was here in the beginning and is still the same today.

I suppose a good example of this would be the Catholic-Protestant problem that persists in Ireland which has little to do with theology itself.

Originally posted by darvlay
If there was no such thing as salvation, and religion was used strictly as a moral, spiritual or even cultural "guide", would humans and races co-exist more peacefully?

If no religion was right or wrong as a means of salvation and it was merely a personal choice, would there be so much acrimony?

If there was no need for salvation..., that would only be true that I can
see for one reason, no divine judgment is coming to worry about any
action being good or bad, making all actions simply a matter of nature
and personal taste. May as well eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow
you die, anything you can get away with here is all fair game since
fair would now be a matter of getting away with it, if your personal
taste allow you to do what ever it is you want to do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If there was no need for salvation..., that would only be true that I can
see for one reason, no divine judgment is coming to worry about any
action being good or bad, making all actions simply a matter of nature
and personal taste. May as well eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow
you die, anything you can get away with here is all fair game since
fai ...[text shortened]... ing away with it, if your personal
taste allow you to do what ever it is you want to do.
Kelly

In your world view, you can get away with all manner of evil, so long as you pray a little prayer before you die. [Plus, it makes a great testimonial for the church...]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought it might have some relevance here, in terms of salvation considered as some escape from ultimate, after-life condemnation.

______________________________________

These seem to be the “cosmic judgment” possibilities:

(1) Nobody gets away with anything.

(2) Nobody gets away with everything. (Or some people get away with something.)

(3) Some people get away with everything.

(4) Everybody gets away with everything.

Setting aside for the moment questions of punishment fitting the crime, or taking account of mitigating circumstances and the like, this seems to lay out the “mercy versus condemnation” possibilities.

I have yet to meet anyone who believes in an individual after-life, except for those who think (1) is the correct answer, who thinks that s/he isn’t going to “get away” with something (e.g., receive no retribution for their sins). Just for example—

Christians generally believe that by accepting Christ, they will get away with their sins (past ones anyway)—that is, they generally seem to believe that (3). Karmic Hindus may believe (1), but that we have an endless round of reincarnations in order to attain salvation.

What I have not come across is someone who is, say, a Christian who adheres to the tenets of Christianity (as he sees them) because he thinks they are true, but who also believes that he will not be saved.

Frankly, only those who adhere to (1) seem to me to be in a position to reasonably complain about the “injustice” of possibility (4). But such complaints seem to generally take the form of what I call an “argument from terribleness”—i.e., “But it would be just terrible if everybody got away with everything!”

___________________________________

One can take one’s pick—for whatever reasons—among those four possibilities. Note that I am speaking here of ultimate “cosmic” judgment; someone who believes in justice (however they define it—I leave that open here) in this existence could certainly try to ensure that nobody gets away with anything in this life, even if they think that there is no judgment in an after-life.

Since my personal view is that death is simply dissolution of this one-time individual existence and return into the whole from whence we arose (and of which we are), I see (4) as the likely case—terrible or not. This does not mean that I try to “get away with” as much as I can, since I do not see that attitude as consistent with living a serene, joyful and flourishing life. I make errors, rectify them when I can, and move on. If there is someone who thinks that rape, for example, is consistent with a serene, joyful and flourishing life, I will try to prevent them from exercising that choice. (I also think they are deluded, to say the least.)

If my view is wrong (that is, (4) does not hold), then I unconditionally trust God or the Tao or Nature or whatever with regard to the ultimate disposition of whatever individuality survives death—whether that means that I get away with anything or not (which is part of why it’s unconditional). That is a deep existential “decision” that I cannot explain, except to say ... No, I’ll just let that go. The personal history involved is too complex, and is not up for debate here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If there was no need for salvation..., that would only be true that I can
see for one reason, no divine judgment is coming to worry about any
action being good or bad, making all actions simply a matter of nature
and personal taste. May as well eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow
you die, anything you can get away with here is all fair game since
fai ...[text shortened]... ing away with it, if your personal
taste allow you to do what ever it is you want to do.
Kelly

I have yet to meet a Christian—or anyone else who believed in a religion of personal salvation—who said something like, “You know, as a matter of personal taste, I really want to torture little children [or whatever], and frankly I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with it. But God says I shouldn’t do it, and I will go to hell if I do, so I don’t.”

If there’s something that someone would really like to “get away with” that would harm someone else (or themselves, for that matter), and only refrain from doing so because of fear of eternal condemnation, then I hope they stay afraid.

I response to Darv’s original post—

Unless and until there is some statistical study analyzing the impact of salvationist religion, we’re all really speculating based on whatever anecdotal evidence we admit. Personally, I am skeptical that salvationist religion has any significant impact on morality at all; that is, on average, I suspect that religious people are as likely to be kind/hateful, violent/nonviolent, honest/dishonest as non-religious people. That does not say that individuals are not influenced by their beliefs, or that the same people would commit (or refrain from) the same atrocities if they’re beliefs were different—just that, on average, I doubt it has any measurable impact.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
In your world view, you can get away with all manner of evil, so long as you pray a little prayer before you die. [Plus, it makes a great testimonial for the church...]

You don't have a clue.
Kelly