Is Christianity too fixated with Salavation?

[Alan_G]

Paul says on several occasions "you have been saved" but then he also says "even as I work towards my salvation" (paraphrasing). So it seems to me that salvation is something that sometimes happens in people who find themselves believing in the gospel for the first time, but it's also a process from then on in these people. <br><br>

I wonder if some of you recoil at the word "salvation" for the reasons I think I do: people oversimplify salvation these days, or, even worse, appear to take some sort of credit for it once they've come into a Christian church. For example you'll see churches where a "new Christian" is congratulated by the church for "accepting Christ". I guess that's not a bad thing per se, but so often so much emphasis is put on what the person "did" to "accept Christ", when in fact in the New Testament everything is cast in terms of the "<B>gift</B> of salvation", and the believers chided to remember that they can't really take any credit for the fact that they had "the ears to hear and the eyes to see" who Jesus was.

This might be too crass for some, but to me salvation is wholeness and living life to its fullest. And what Jesus, Paul, etc. did for many people who considered themselves "unreligious" was make the case that if they wanted to live life to the fullest and suck all of the meaning and joy out of life that they could, then they did well to make a study of Christianity a part of their life. Jesus described salvation when he said "I have come so that you may have abundant life."

[Dave the Web]

That is a very good description of salvation! Certainly a good way to say how I see it myself.

[Arch]

That's really going to annoy the extremists!

[wkrossa]

Originally Posted by foundationist

This topic indirectly arose in another thread - so it would be interesting to see the responses from current and future members.

Is Christianity really too fixated Salvation? If so, why? Is it down to denominationalism, Church power and control, or simply a personal need on an individual level to feel vindicated in their beliefs and actions?

The entire salvation issue responds to a profound error in early shaman's minds. The earliest mythology had viewed the forces of nature as expressions of the gods. As these forces were often destructive, it was believed that the gods were angry. Some innovative mind along the way suggested that the angry gods could be appeased with blood sacrifice. And so we have the beginning of the history of propitiation, appeasement and all the other strains of salvation mythology. Add in here the idea of taboo breakers offending the gods which would develop into the religious idea of sin and you have the basis for salvation ideology which has been a huge money making venture for religions- see Jacquetta Hawkes, "The First Great Civilizations" for some interesting comment on how religion was the driving force behind early state formation and was also the economic engine of those early Mesapotamian(sp?) states.
Pfeiffer (I mentioned him in another post) and Campbell have suggested several fruitful lines of research to properly understand this entire salvation thing. One is that early mythmakers (shaman) underwent schizophrenic-like experiences of separation, descent into irrationality, and eventual return and healing. These men apparently projected the themes of their own experience outward into early mythology.
Now somewhere back in the dark mists of prehistory several notable mythical themes emerged. One was the idea of anger in the gods. Another was that of the separation of humanity from the gods (a Fall or people offending the gods by breaking taboos). Further strains of thought along this line included the removal of the gods up into the heavens to live at a distance and control people from their. All of this fed into later ideas of needing to placate the angry gods with sacrifice and restore ruptured relationships- salvation. More recently in history this has led to the Christian obsession with getting saved. Establishing a relationship with God.
But let me suggest that all this concern with salvation responds to the wrong question. It responds to a horrific error in early shamanistic minds. If ideas of separation from God arose out of those early schizophrenic experiences then the entire history of religious salvation is based on a misperception by men undergoing episodes of insanity. That error was passed along into zoroastrian theology which formed the foundational template for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Christianity ina more intense manner than the other two Western religion developed and refined its ideology of salvation, based on ideas of sin, separation and the need to restore a broken relationship.
Most basic to this issue of salvation is the idea of a Fall or separation. The core fall myth in many cultures posits a separation of divinity as the result of early people breaking some taboo. In the Christian version of this common myth, death entered as a result of the taboo breaking. Consequently, God in a snit abandoned the curious people.
Now, Michael Morwood (author of Tommorrow's Catholic), among others, has noted that the sedimentary record clearly shows that death occured long before some innocents in an early Eden 'sinned'. This is evidence that there never was a time when death did not exist. Now think of the implications of this. There never was a separation of humanity from God, except in the insanity of early mythmakers. Hence, there is no need to appease God or restore some severed relationship. There is no need to invite God or Jesus into any life or heart. God never left. And he has never been angry with the human struggle to overcome its animal origins in order to live more humanely. In fact, this struggle of emerging humanity to progress toward a more humane future is the core manifestation of transcendence/God in the universe.
The true story of the universe is not about anger, separation, regression from early paradise, coming apocalyptic and restoration through destruction (nihilism in its truest sense). The universe story is about generally slow advance and progress, but is ever rising toward a better future. However people choose to express divinity in all this, it is necessary to recognize the error of early shamanistic thinking and take into account the true story of life which such disciplines as paleontology and evolutionary biology have given us the outlines of.
And if Campbell and Pfeiffer are right about early shaman then we need to re-evaluate all the history of Christian theologizing (note Paul's letters most prominently here) as a misquided detour that has devoted its energy and time to building a system based on an error that arose out of the nuttiness of early mythmakers. Let me be frank. It has all been a huge mistake. There never was a Fall. There is no need for salvation. This is the true good news that the tortured consciousness of humanity needs to hear.

[I, Brian]

Hi wkrossa - and welcome to comparative-religion.com!

Glad to see you putting some of your ideas out - it certainly does make for some interesting reading.

If I may add something, though - on the issue of separation I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I do believe that a more fundamental separation was made apparent, which helped drive the entire sense of separation - and that's the difference between humanity and the other animals of nature.

Whatever the arguments as to what may or may not have consciousness and self-awareness, the simple fact remains that humanity can "create" - ie, shape the world in a pre-determined way that no other creature can. Hence we lay somewhere between the Natural and the Divine.

I see that issue - of the rational gifts of our humanity - that were the really engine for the belief in our separation from the Divine,

This is almost stated explicitly in the Book of Genesis, when Adam and Eve only realise their difference and sense of sense through eating fo the Tree of Knowledge - it is precisely because of knowledge that they are separated.

Possibly, anyway.

[wkrossa]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Hi wkrossa - and welcome to comparative-religion.com!

Glad to see you putting some of your ideas out - it certainly does make for some interesting reading.

If I may add something, though - on the issue of separation I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I do believe that a more fundamental separation was made apparent, which helped drive the entire sense of separation - and that's the difference between humanity and the other animals of nature.

Whatever the arguments as to what may or may not have consciousness and self-awareness, the simple fact remains that humanity can "create" - ie, shape the world in a pre-determined way that no other creature can. Hence we lay somewhere between the Natural and the Divine.

I see that issue - of the rational gifts of our humanity - that were the really engine for the belief in our separation from the Divine,

This is almost stated explicitly in the Book of Genesis, when Adam and Eve only realise their difference and sense of sense through eating fo the Tree of Knowledge - it is precisely because of knowledge that they are separated.

Possibly, anyway.

Good point Brian. In my use of separation I was referring more to the idea of separation from God a la the Fall myth. This separation contains the element of enmity. Campbell notes that the idea of separation from the spiritual realm emerged about 2000 BC. This was morphed into Fall mythology which had this element of people having angered the gods through broken taboos. Different cultures have a variety of these legends. In a Southeast Asian tribal group I worked with they believed that a young lady was pounding rice and hit the lowered heavens. IN response God pulled heaven up far away and shut the gates. Very similar to the OT version in that there was some offense and a response of shutting out humanity.
This idea of separation also has elements of the gods being located far away in the heavens which comes from the idea of the divine order being evident in the cosmos, the sun and moon ruling over the lesser lights. That hierarchical order was to be replicated on earth.
My point in noting the origins of these ideas is that if they are based on primitive misunderstanding of the nature of reality and life, then we are freed to find entirely new and more humane ways of understanding and defining the spiritual.
And most liberating- if there never was a separation of humanity from God, then there is no need for salvation and all the guilt, anxiety and fear that has burdened humanity in relation to salvation mythology.
But yes to your point that we have developed as something uniquely different from animal life. Consciousness is taking us in an entirely new and more humane direction. And that is the manifestation of transcendence in the universe. It is the ladder of progress that science recognizes more as integral to life. Just out of interest, see article in latest Atlantic Monthly 'ET and God' for update on scientific attitudes about this thing of design versus randomness.

[Iacchus]

Yeah, it's funny how I just started a new thread about man's estrangement with nature at PhysicsForums.Com. It's called A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection? And here I bring up the Spiritual Timeline mentioned in my book which suggests we've only been here as a species for about 10,000 years, since the advent of early agriculture in Asia Minor.

Of course if there were no fall, then there would be no need for salvation either, in which case it completely by-passes the need for Jesus to be here.

While it's also hard to imagine that recorded history doesn't go back beyond 5,000 BC, and that so much has happened in such a short period of time - "evolutionary wise." And yet I would say 10,000 years or, possibly 5,000 years, if the story at the fall of the Tower of Babel is correct, would be just enough time to allow for the evolution in the differences between races. Beyond that, what other evidence is there about our evolution?

[gatherer]

Paul made it quite clear what salvation requires. Love our Father in heaven with all our heart, mind, and soul, have faith in Christ as the Son of the Father, resurrected on the 3rd day, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Anything beyond that, to me, is unnecessary fluff.

[dhisbrook]

Implied in the wording of the question is a point of view; namely, saying there is a "fixation" implies something wrong or a dysfunction of some kind. The dysfunction, I would offer, is with individual Christians and not with Christianity itself.

Nevertheless, Jesus' ministry and death established a new covenant wherein we can accept a relationship with God unfettered by doctrines and religious laws. Much of our church framework gets in the way of that by establishing -- doctrines and religious laws.

Working around that or working through that is the greatest challenge to all Christians, myself included. Some individual Christians certainly get very stuck on saved/not-saved -- to the detriment of their spiritual development and a healthy, growing, loving relationship with God.

May the Peace and Grace of God be with all who visit.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by JJM
May I ask what you mean by heaven may not be a place? My church says that this may or may not be true but the Idea doesn't make sense to me. because even if it is mearly a state isn't the place you are while you are experiencing this state the place which can be given the same name as the state?

I'm resurrecting this thread because the idea of salvation came up elsewhere.(in another thread: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ead.php?t=1308)

Plus, there are some very interesting comments found in the posts above.

I think heaven/The Kingdom of God is a state of being, so in a sense the place is *here* and the time is *now*. When I say that heaven is not a material place, I mean that it can not be located in the physical universe by scientific means. Yet we can cross into this state of being at any time. For example, I think that while in prayer and meditation we are living in the Kingdom. When we try to live the life, we are trying to spend larger percentages of our time in heaven. When we increase peace and justice on this planet we are revealing the Kingdom that is already in place.

I don't know what happens at death. I am more concerned about how I live my life and I believe I lead a better life, one that yields more good fruit, has more joy, and brings me closer to my full potential, when I do so in the context of a Church that worships a loving God and emphasizes a spirit of service to humanity. When I claim God as my Father, Jesus as my Lord, and the Holy Spirit as my Counselor, I am saying that I am trying to live with compassion and in harmony with the rest of creation. I think this was the teaching of Jesus. I am also praying for grace and assistance in doing this. But I can't really know what other people mean when they say the same thing.

Having said that I don't believe in a physical/material heaven, I do speculate what form the next life will take. In one sense I think we experience merging with the ocean from which we originally came. But I don't see how we can hope to retain any identitity, memories from this life, and specific relationships with our loved ones without some kind of body. I don't think we are light or energy, but I think maybe this is a good metaphor for what we are. Light or energy travelling through space uninterrupted is not detectable. Only when something, an object, a sensor, gets in the way of the light do we know it is there. I think that maybe our souls are something like this. They are real--they are there, but we only see them when they are reflected by our bodies. So, if there is an afterlife with indvidual consciousness (as I believe there is), then we must have another type of body in another type of place. This is what I think Paul means when he talks about our transformed bodies, our spirtual bodies. However, this transformed body and place is wholly unlike the ones we experience here. We don't understand it any more than a rock understands us. When we "get there" we'll all have a good laugh over how far off every one of our beliefs have been.

I'm sure this doesn't make sense to anyone else, but metaphysical things defy words. I see I have not really talked about salvation. To me the concept remains elusive.

[PersonaNonGrata]

and after that if you have spend a lifetime in this ongoing world as if you are gifted, then better gifts may await you, i mean something that belongs this conscious live so that we may learn... dont you think?


may your soul be eternal...
PNG


that is what i believe pomsang lol at your sacrified spirit, kindly )

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Alan_G

Paul says on several occasions "you have been saved" but then he also says "even as I work towards my salvation" (paraphrasing). So it seems to me that salvation is something that sometimes happens in people who find themselves believing in the gospel for the first time, but it's also a process from then on in these people...

This might be too crass for some, but to me salvation is wholeness and living life to its fullest. And what Jesus, Paul, etc. did for many people who considered themselves "unreligious" was make the case that if they wanted to live life to the fullest and suck all of the meaning and joy out of life that they could, then they did well to make a study of Christianity a part of their life. Jesus described salvation when he said "I have come so that you may have abundant life."

I basically agree with you, Alan, but cautiously so. First of all, your observation about the relationship between "being saved" and "working towards salvation" is in my opinion quite astute. Personally, I think that being saved is a daily state of being, rather than a once in a lifetime event. When Paul says that someone was saved, I think that he is referring to the first step toward salvation (i.e. You have taken the first step toward salvation; as long as you keep stepping, your salvation is waiting for you). But when he talks about working toward salvation, I think he is referring to the subsequent steps.

There are 8 lines in the Revelation that often get translated as "To the one who overcomes." In the literal translation, however, they are translated as "To the one who is overcoming." My interpretation of these lines is that both the one who has been overcoming for one day and the one who has been overcoming for fifty years are equally deserving of salvation (it's like Jesus' parable of the workers who were paid equally, though some had worked longer than others).

When I said that I am cautious to agree with you, I mean that there is one thing that you said that feels unsettling in my heart, and that is when you say "Living life to its fullest." The immediate thing that came into my mind was "Because you are neither cold or hot I am about to vomit you out of my mouth." Too often the idea of living life to its fullest ignores the basic truth that we as Christians were redeemed by Jesus at a price, and that in truth we are not free to do whatever we would like to do. Too much freedom can easily lead someone astray so that, having taken a few steps but then becoming distracted, they walk away from the path that was leading them toward their salvation. This is how I read the church of the Laodiceans: As a group of people who knew Jesus, but then forgot about him.

If by "living life to the fullest" you are referring to living life for Jesus, to become as much like him as possible (which means overcoming the obstacles placed in front of us to prevent this from happening), then I surely rather than cautiously agree with you.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I'm resurrecting this thread because the idea of salvation came up elsewhere.(in another thread: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ead.php?t=1308)

Plus, there are some very interesting comments found in the posts above.

I think heaven/The Kingdom of God is a state of being, so in a sense the place is *here* and the time is *now*. When I say that heaven is not a material place, I mean that it can not be located in the physical universe by scientific means. Yet we can cross into this state of being at any time. For example, I think that while in prayer and meditation we are living in the Kingdom. When we try to live the life, we are trying to spend larger percentages of our time in heaven. When we increase peace and justice on this planet we are revealing the Kingdom that is already in place.

I don't know what happens at death. I am more concerned about how I live my life and I believe I lead a better life, one that yields more good fruit, has more joy, and brings me closer to my full potential, when I do so in the context of a Church that worships a loving God and emphasizes a spirit of service to humanity. When I claim God as my Father, Jesus as my Lord, and the Holy Spirit as my Counselor, I am saying that I am trying to live with compassion and in harmony with the rest of creation. I think this was the teaching of Jesus. I am also praying for grace and assistance in doing this. But I can't really know what other people mean when they say the same thing.

Having said that I don't believe in a physical/material heaven, I do speculate what form the next life will take. In one sense I think we experience merging with the ocean from which we originally came. But I don't see how we can hope to retain any identitity, memories from this life, and specific relationships with our loved ones without some kind of body. I don't think we are light or energy, but I think maybe this is a good metaphor for what we are. Light or energy travelling through space uninterrupted is not detectable. Only when something, an object, a sensor, gets in the way of the light do we know it is there. I think that maybe our souls are something like this. They are real--they are there, but we only see them when they are reflected by our bodies. So, if there is an afterlife with indvidual consciousness (as I believe there is), then we must have another type of body in another type of place. This is what I think Paul means when he talks about our transformed bodies, our spirtual bodies. However, this transformed body and place is wholly unlike the ones we experience here. We don't understand it any more than a rock understands us. When we "get there" we'll all have a good laugh over how far off every one of our beliefs have been.

I'm sure this doesn't make sense to anyone else, but metaphysical things defy words. I see I have not really talked about salvation. To me the concept remains elusive.

I agree with the first two paragraphs of this. A more accepted term for this heaven on earth is a state of Grace. This is true and by turning your backs on God one can also achieve a state of Hell on earth. As far as what you said about the after life this is my belief. When you die what ever state you where in on earth either heaven or Hell that is how you stay eternally. Because heaven is out side of time the end times will have already happened in a sense. Because of this I think we have a body a glorified one similar to the one described of Christ at the transfiguration. I hold that we will have the same identity of this life. What is sinful about us will be taken away and what isn't will be glorified. The relationships that we have will still be there but we will have a perfect relationship with all. What I think though is that after we die if we do have glorified bodies then they have to be somewhere and that some where could rightly be called heaven.

[JJM]

Salvation can't be too fixated on by Christianity it is its purpose. However it can be misrepresented. I think the word Salvation is used most commonly in 3 ways. Two of which are right and one of which is wrong. The first of the correct is when you are baptized you receive the Grace needed to achieve salvation. The second correct is that when you enter heaven you are internally saved. The incorrect one is a mix of the other two. It is the idea that by doing the first you automatically receive the second. This is false for your name can be removed from the book of life. It is important though not to assume the state of anyone. Only God knows if you will go to heaven when you die. If that bothers you then you need to get over it. The idea that only Christians can be saved is ludicrous. To the one who receives more, more is expected to the one who receives less, less is expected. One must only act accordingly to what they receive. This may mean they need to be a Christian but it may also mean they are unaware and thus not responsible for this obligation. Only God truly knows what they know.

[Sacredstar]

Dear All

What a wonderful thread and exchanges, I agree with much that has been written. My view is that a great deal in scripture has been mistranslated, misconstrued and misunderstood. It is the same with salvation, i feel that this is more to do with man saving him/herself from the human self.

I can honestly say through the healing work that I have done, during self mastery I have been reborn a few times. Rebirth of the spirit is a wonderful and elevating experience, as I am sure many will agree.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"

The rebirth of the spirit at a higher level of consciousness, aligning the masculine and feminine energies, the human and divine self. Alignment of the two determines the value of the third and our relationship with GOD and this is what Jesus is referring to in the Gospel of Thomas. "When the two become one".

and again he says

49 Happy are they who stand in their own strength born of finding ONENESS, and willing to be separated, for you shall find the Kingdom. Because you have come from the heart of it, you shall return there again.

GOD gave us two keys to truth, one leads to the black hole and the other leads to wholeness. Free will is the greatest gift given, so that we could choose.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar