Universalism before and after X

[Noone special]

I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.

[synthesizer-patel]

I asked what I think is a question upon similar lines in another thread (it was a little off topic though) - I don't feel that I ever got a straight answer.

A point was raised that in order to avoid hell / go to heaven, your worldly deeds, and the fruits of those deeds were irrelevant unless you had been "saved" by Jesus Christ.

To which I observed that - if that was really the case - if you were to compare, for example, George W Bush who is by his own admission a born again Christian - but nonetheless a born again Christian who has never been observed to demonstrate anything close to what might be considered as Christian values or Christain behaviours in his public life at least - to Mahatma Ghandi a Hindu who's beleifs and actions in his life (apparently both public and private) are those to which a person of any religion could recognise as being of the very highest standards we could aspire to as a human being, the two the only one who had any chance of salvation was GWB.

Now it may well be that GWB is not the evil murderous mammon worshiping little satan that he appears to be, and he may well have many qualities that the big pink pixie in the sky admires and desires for his heavenly throng
But that's not really the point - what about the clearly pure in heart and soul Ghandi - bound for the lake of fire apparently - and sent there by a just God for the sheer accident of birth of having been born a hindu.

explain the justice there to me someone please.

ps - NoS the solution is recognise religion for the crazy devisive nonsense it really is, realise that all of the human race is one, love EVERYONE, stop worshiping a silly god that gets in the way of that, and get on with your life and stop worring about it - it worked for me :)

[Prince_James]

No One Special:

Tradition holds that those who came before Jesus resided in "paradise" or "The Hell (non-negative) of the Fathers". This is referenced by Jesus to the thief on the cross and it is extrapolated, specifically in Catholicism, to a pre-Heaven paradisical state. This is where Abraham spoke to Lazarus and Abel would not stop crying out for vengeance against Cain.

Furthermore, "limbo" is where righteous non-Christians, even unto this day, are kept. However, this notion of "limbo" has been quashed by Catholics recently to a certain extent. This goes alongside the issue of unbaptized infants and aborted children.

[Noone special]

synthesizer-patel: Well a christian answer to the "justice" would be this: since we are all sinners, if we attempt to achieve salvation through purifying our own souls, it will never work. And because of our "depraved" nature, we are all destined to hell anyway, and it is just and merciful that God would save even a few... However I feel this is slightly off topic.

But that is a trully interesting conversation topic. According to a christian perspective, could Ghandi have been saved? In the Old Testament, God reached out to Abraham, who was a pagan, so how can we say Ghandi did not know God?

PJ: Well I understand the argument of "Abrahams Bosom" (although honestly I don't find much biblical proof to it perhaps Rom 10:7 and a ambiguous reference in the Old Testament) But I think that point just postpones the issue. Who exactly goes into "Paradise" or "Abrahams Bosom"? Certainly Job did, who was not a Jew. Or perhaps everyone did. Some might even argue that if you never hear about Jesus when your alive, youll get told about him after you die (though I don't know about that either)

So I am stuck again in my predicament.

[spidergoat]

Salvation is a concept which transcends the Christian religion. Being alive and intelligent is in itself a difficult burden. The Buddha said life is suffering, and realization of our own nature is salvation. Jesus said similar things in his lifetime, but he was limited to the theological language of the day.

The "unity" of the bible is not a teneble position by any intellectual measure, so that's a handicap right off.

[lightgigantic]

I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.

it short religious principles are always apt to deteriorate within human civilization - so according to time place and circumstance there are various incarnations of god/saintly people to properly re-establish religious principles

[Prince_James]

Noone Special:

PJ: Well I understand the argument of "Abrahams Bosom" (although honestly I don't find much biblical proof to it perhaps Rom 10:7 and a ambiguous reference in the Old Testament) But I think that point just postpones the issue. Who exactly goes into "Paradise" or "Abrahams Bosom"? Certainly Job did, who was not a Jew. Or perhaps everyone did. Some might even argue that if you never hear about Jesus when your alive, youll get told about him after you die (though I don't know about that either)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell

Check some of these sources/beliefs out. I think you might find your answer.

[greenberg]

I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.

The way I see it, the problems you mention above emerge when these tenets are held and the Bible is read with unquestioning faith in these tenets:

1. that the Earth is only some six or ten thousand years old;
2. that there is only one earthly creation - namely the one we commonly refer to as "Earth", and not that earthly creations would follow one upon another, ie. one being created and then destroyed, and then another one created and destroyed, and so on many many times;
3. that each human has only one lifetime in one material body (about 70 years or so) and that there is no such thing as multiple rebirth/reincarnation as it is known in Hinduism or Buddhism;
4. that there exists eternal hell and people will go there who do not accept Jesus as their savior;
5. that Jesus is the one and only form of God incarnate;
6. that God works in mysterious ways that a human cannot understand, so one would do better not to ask any challenging questions or reflect on them.


I think one needs to examine these tenets ...

[Adstar]

I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?"

Salvation is through Jesus and always has been through Jesus. Those before Jesus was born looked forward to their future slavation.



"If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

Salvation did not come before Christ. But that does not mean that all where condemned before Christ. the Scritpures declares:

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

So Jesus went and gave the saving Word to those who where formerly disobediant.


So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?

There has never been salvation outside Jesus and there is not today.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Noone special]

Well you make a good point, that Christ went a preached to those who had died before He arrived on earth. Unfortunately that brings up a dilemma. If people are preached too after they die, and they get a chance to accept Christ, what's the point of evangelizing now? In fact, what was all the hubub that Paul did when he travelled the entire Graeco-Roman world trying to get as many people saved as he could?

Certainly if those who didn't get a chance to hear about Christ (the disobedient during Noah's time) then those who don't hear about Him today will also.

How exactly is this consistent?

[Crunchy Cat]

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?

The correct answer subjectively is anything you want it to be. The correct answer objectively is that salvation isn't real.

[Simon Anders]

I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.

There isn't one answer to this. I think a lot of Christians think you can make it without accepting Jesus as your personal savior and there are a lot who think you can't.

Some say that Jesus came to make it EASIER. He greased the wheels of salvation with his blood. So we can be saved more easily. Once he was on the scene, man, if you don't recognize him - after all he did for you - then you are going to hell.

The problem is also not just one of time, but also of place. I mean Yamano Indians, even today, there must be some who have not come in contact with the idea of Jesus. Not many but a few. Certainly 100 years ago there were many who never heard of the guy, especially in a Christian context. I mean members of Islam have him in their stories, but not in the Christian way.

Or in much of China, etc.

Theology has often struck me as like the law. It has very little to do with justice, but is all about deducing conclusions from axioms. I cannot imagine God is bound by all this game playing.

[Noone special]

I take the negative stance for sake of argument, but maybe that was wrong seeing that I don't find a worthy defender.
Is there any out there who would take it upon themselves to find unity in scripture and show the consistency of a "salvific plan"? (see my previous posts)
If your going to believe in the bible, you should at least be able to show that it is not self-contradictory.

[Simon Anders]

Well you make a good point, that Christ went a preached to those who had died before He arrived on earth. Unfortunately that brings up a dilemma. If people are preached too after they die, and they get a chance to accept Christ, what's the point of evangelizing now? In fact, what was all the hubub that Paul did when he travelled the entire Graeco-Roman world trying to get as many people saved as he could?

Certainly if those who didn't get a chance to hear about Christ (the disobedient during Noah's time) then those who don't hear about Him today will also.

How exactly is this consistent?
It's not.
Though some would say that it was God's will that he do this. God wanted the Litmus test shifted and good little christians have spread the word. Also that since Jesus makes it easier, you lose a few who ignore and get damned, but you save more who find their way to heaven more easily having come in contact with Jesus' teachings.

They hear the stories and become good people and christians. Get it? Christianity is better at purifying souls. Not as many Jews make it to heaven, but it is possible. After being exposed to Jesus more people get that lovin heart and hear God and will make it through the right gates. It is true that some will hear Jesus' words and choose not to follow him and be damned, but statistics are still behind spreading the word.

Jesus was sent because God saw that people just weren't getting it that much.

I think the whole thing is dopey, but it can be consistant. Many assinine things have internal consistancy. Heroin abuse, for example.

[Crunchy Cat]

I take the negative stance for sake of argument, but maybe that was wrong seeing that I don't find a worthy defender.
Is there any out there who would take it upon themselves to find unity in scripture and show the consistency of a "salvific plan"? (see my previous posts)
If your going to believe in the bible, you should at least be able to show that it is not self-contradictory.

Just make something up so it doesn't appear to be self-contradictory.

[Simon Anders]

Just make something up so it doesn't appear to be self-contradictory.
Or you could call the self-contradiction a mysterious paradox.

[Noone special]

Haha, if sarcasm was gold you all would be dead, on acount that you would be burried in gold. And we all know that if someone is burried in gold they can't move to go eat something. And your gall bladder would probably be crushed by the weight.

Death by gall bladder squishing is not pleasant, believe me.

But as to the subject at hand, I think that its settled for now, thanks for the comments yall.

[Simon Anders]

I actually tried to answer your request. And I based my answers on answers I have gotten from Christians.

[Crunchy Cat]

Me too. Christians make things up so it seems a valid Christian method of dealing with contradiction.

[Simon Anders]

I actually think they can manage to come up with a consistant explanation for the whole saved before Jesus was born issue. I know. I have argued with them. They can be consistant, but what you end up with is this very game-like scenario. Sure some all powerful being could have done it that way, but was this really the best he could come up with. It should be embarrassing, but, of course, it isn't to them.

I also think it is OK to say you don't know, but you have a gut feeling of belief in the core of something.

But Christians, at least on the internet - much less so in person - have answers. They can demonstrate why it makes sense. Which I find odd. Especially with all the 'mysterious ways' talk in certain contexts and the fact that we are talking about God.

It would be so wonderful if one would say:

You know, I don't know. I can understand why you are pressing that point. I believe in the core message of the Bible and I believe that Jesus was.......(etc) but I am not sure how this is resolved. In my case it does not matter. I have heard of Jesus and.....and so on.

But somehow a very large % of online Christians are theologens who don't really get stumped.

There is such fear around saying I don't know - not that this trait is only found in theists. I mean one can be right and not necessarily have access to a great explanation or even a poorly worded but correct one.

[lightgigantic]

The correct answer subjectively is anything you want it to be. The correct answer objectively is that salvation isn't real.
eh?
lets see the evidence for your (apparently) objective claim
no absolute negatives please
:)

[Crunchy Cat]

eh?
lets see the evidence for your (apparently) objective claim
no absolute negatives please
:)

Ez pz,

* The claim of 'Salvation' has existed since *pick a time in ancient history*. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.

* There are objective assertions made in any scripture claiming salvation, many of which have been directly proven incorrect through science.

* There are contradictory statements made by any scripture claiming salvation. Reality does not support contradicton.

* Humans naturally fill in gaps with imagination... that is take something they have little to no knowledge about and fill it in with something creative and emotionally satisfying. Paradise after death would be an example.

* Humans are very judgemental and seek to punish those whom exhibit 'bad' behavior. Mix that with anthropomorphism (which you should know by now every human exhibits) and you have an imaginary life form punishing those with 'bad' behavior for eternity and 'saving' those with 'good' behavior.

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.

[lightgigantic]

Ez pz,

* The claim of 'Salvation' has existed since *pick a time in ancient history*. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.
evidence by who?
I mean there are very good reasons why there is zero indications of issues of advanced physics being evidenced in fields of business management

* There are objective assertions made in any scripture claiming salvation, many of which have been directly proven incorrect through science.
such as?


* There are contradictory statements made by any scripture claiming salvation. Reality does not support contradicton.
once again, depends whether it is the person is a practitioner or a non-practitioner - for instance the worlds most effective business manager's opinion of contradictions in the field of physics (like whether a photon is ultimately a particle or a wave) are not heralded as greatly valid

* Humans naturally fill in gaps with imagination... that is take something they have little to no knowledge about and fill it in with something creative and emotionally satisfying. Paradise after death would be an example.
I think I mentioned the perils of absolute negatives
take heed
lol

* Humans are very judgemental and seek to punish those whom exhibit 'bad' behavior. Mix that with anthropomorphism (which you should know by now every human exhibits) and you have an imaginary life form punishing those with 'bad' behavior for eternity and 'saving' those with 'good' behavior.
what is this crackpottery?
objective evidence only please
save your tentative explanations for later

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.
first of all establish how you have complete knowledge (outside of "group " pressures)
/grabs popcorn

[Linda7777]

I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.

There was no salvation before Christ. He went and preached to those spirits that were in prison when he descended into hell. He preached to them.
God himself became the sacrifice needed to provide salvation for the world. Jesus was born under the law, born of a woman. He gave the law then came into the world under it.
There is no salvation outside of Christ. Evil (sin) is the key word when studying why Christ came. No one could defeat evil but God himself.
The Bible is in order and tells the story of Jesus Christ, the who, what, when, where, how and why he came into the world.
This is told from Genesis to Revelation.
He came to save us from sin and sin is the transgression of his law.
He had to come because there had to be death of the sacrifice and no one qualified but God himself.
He inspired Abraham to answer Isaac when he said "The Lord will prepare himself a sacrifice." and he did prepare himself to die by becoming a man whom his executers claimed was an imposter.

[Noone special]

I appreciate your reply Linda, however I have the feeling that you did not read the whole thread.
Earlier I asked this question "if the disobedient of Noah's time were preached the gospel of Christ while they were in hell, why do not all people get this similar chance after Christ has come?"
Really, if everyone is going to get the opprotunity for salvation after death, whats the point of the christian institution? further, what was the point of the disciples, missionaries, evangelism, the church ect.
Just let everyone die and make their decision already.

[Crunchy Cat]

evidence by who?
I mean there are very good reasons why there is zero indications of issues of advanced physics being evidenced in fields of business management

Anyone whom could provide it of course. If a business person wanted to see evidence of superpositions, a physicist could demonstrate it.



such as?

What's your scripture?



once again, depends whether it is the person is a practitioner or a non-practitioner - for instance the worlds most effective business manager's opinion of contradictions in the field of physics (like whether a photon is ultimately a particle or a wave) are not heralded as greatly valid

Physicists would point out that its both and demonstrate it.


I think I mentioned the perils of absolute negatives
take heed
lol

While I don't know what you are talking about, my assertion is an observable human behavior.


what is this crackpottery?

Those words just sound funny coming from you.


objective evidence only please
save your tentative explanations for later

Would you like to see Muslims punishing disobedient children with death or dying grandparents rewarding their well behaved family members with a big inheritance?


first of all establish how you have complete knowledge (outside of "group " pressures)
/grabs popcorn

I don't know what you mean by 'complete knowledge'; however, education, observation, intelligence, and experience play an important role I'm sure.

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
evidence by who?
I mean there are very good reasons why there is zero indications of issues of advanced physics being evidenced in fields of business management
”
Anyone whom could provide it of course. If a business person wanted to see evidence of superpositions, a physicist could demonstrate it.
and the businessman can verify the authenticity of the demonstration by what exactly?


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
such as?
”
What's your scripture?
the bhagavad gita is a nice simple concise one to reference


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
once again, depends whether it is the person is a practitioner or a non-practitioner - for instance the worlds most effective business manager's opinion of contradictions in the field of physics (like whether a photon is ultimately a particle or a wave) are not heralded as greatly valid
”
Physicists would point out that its both and demonstrate it.
probably why the business man in the example writes it off as a contradiction ....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think I mentioned the perils of absolute negatives
take heed
lol
”
While I don't know what you are talking about, my assertion is an observable human behavior.
when you extend that all issues of personality (like for instance the notion of god being a person) are ultimately all projections of our humanity, you can't see the whopping great big wave of anthropomorphism you are riding?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what is this crackpottery?
”
Those words just sound funny coming from you.
no less humorous than your argument that conveniently steps outside of empiricism when you herald that all all arguments in reality must be empirical

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
objective evidence only please
save your tentative explanations for later
”
Would you like to see Muslims punishing disobedient children with death or dying grandparents rewarding their well behaved family members with a big inheritance?
I guess we can also but them along side with scientists making gross miscalculations while surmising the universe and its history

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
first of all establish how you have complete knowledge (outside of "group " pressures)
/grabs popcorn
”
I don't know what you mean by 'complete knowledge'; however, education, observation, intelligence, and experience play an important role I'm sure.
and they are outside of group pressures because?

[Simon Anders]

The claim of 'Salvation' has existed since *pick a time in ancient history*. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.
This is not evidence that salvation is not real. This is an assertion that there is a dearth of evidence on the other side.

* There are objective assertions made in any scripture claiming salvation, many of which have been directly proven incorrect through science.
This is not evidence that salvation is not real. This is a claim about problems the other side has in proving its assertion.

* There are contradictory statements made by any scripture claiming salvation. Reality does not support contradicton. This is not evidence there is no salvation. It is an argument that challenges the idea that ALL notions of salvation can be true.

* Humans naturally fill in gaps with imagination... that is take something they have little to no knowledge about and fill it in with something creative and emotionally satisfying. Paradise after death would be an example.
This is a hypothesis about the source of the belief. It is not evidence showing there is no salvation.

* Humans are very judgemental and seek to punish those whom exhibit 'bad' behavior. Mix that with anthropomorphism (which you should know by now every human exhibits) and you have an imaginary life form punishing those with 'bad' behavior for eternity and 'saving' those with 'good' behavior.This is a hypothesis about the source of the belief. It is not evidence showing there is no salvation.


You have provided no evidence at all to support your claim that there is no salvation. If you raised these points in other contexts they might make for valid arguments. However you stated that objectively salvation is not real. You have provided no evidence of this. This does not mean you are wrong. It would be very hard to provide evidence of such a thing. But the fact that you confuse the above arguments with evidence of your assertion shows a deep misunderstanding of what evidence is.

The arguments are possible ways of attacking a believer when they set out to back up their claim that salvation is real. You can use them to counter these arguments or raise doubt about the reasons the believer has for believing.

But you yourself made an assertion. You asserted that salvation is not real. The above arguments on your part do not support this claim.

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat
“
and the businessman can verify the authenticity of the demonstration by what exactly?

If he had reason to doubt the authenticity of the demonstration he could replicate it on his own.


the bhagavad gita is a nice simple concise one to reference


Purushottama claiming to be the primary source of energy on earth (taking credit for Sunlight) would be a good one.


probably why the business man in the example writes it off as a contradiction ....

If the business man doesn't hold reality as the highest 'authority' on truth then he has a personal limitation.


when you extend that all issues of personality (like for instance the notion of god being a person) are ultimately all projections of our humanity, you can't see the whopping great big wave of anthropomorphism you are riding?

Wouldn't that type of anthropomprhization be claiming human behavior is driven by external fantastic sapient life forms? That's far different then pointing out how people are prone to fill in knowledge gaps with imagination.


no less humorous than your argument that conveniently steps outside of empiricism when you herald that all all arguments in reality must be empirical

Everything stated in the associated bullet about humans being judgmental and actively anthroporphizing is empirically observable.


I guess we can also but them along side with scientists making gross miscalculations while surmising the universe and its history

What's that fallacy about a competing unrelated argument substitution?


and they are outside of group pressures because?

In the West it's unlikely that a group can affect another person's ability to survive as the individual is protected. So while pressures might be present, there is no survival requirement to giving into those pressuires.

[Crunchy Cat]

This is not evidence that salvation is not real. This is an assertion that there is a dearth of evidence on the other side.

So, if you want to be technical then you are correct in that it is not evidence that some weird generic salvation doesn't exists somewhere in reality... but that would be no more likely than being cursed by some generic zaboombafoo dimension.

What it is evidence for is the human claim of salvation being false. Think about it statistically. Hundreds of thousands of years of claim and zero objective evidence. It raises the question 'why does the claim exist?' and the answer can be traced right into human psychology.

For future reference, I am referring to the claim of salvation by human beings and of course I am considering scripture to be a human invention.


This is not evidence that salvation is not real. This is a claim about problems the other side has in proving its assertion.

This is not evidence there is no salvation. It is an argument that challenges the idea that ALL notions of salvation can be true.


All scriptures that I am aware of that claim salvation are supposedly written by "perfect" life forms... usually omnipitent and omniscient. If you are perfect and know everything then to make a mistake drops the whole house of cards and exposes a scripture as a human invention... and that brings us back to claim samplings over a huge amount of time with zero supportive evidence... which brings us back to asking why the claim exists... and of course the answer becomes quite clear.


This is a hypothesis about the source of the belief. It is not evidence showing there is no salvation.

A hypothesis is an idea for testing. A fact is a consistent observation. This particular reflects how people make things up that are satisfying to fill in knowledge gaps. Its a natural behavior that can be observed in any society on earth. Humans tend to share alot of common desires (a big one being for their sapience to persist after death in paradise). We are difference detection machines compelled to persist after all.


This is a hypothesis about the source of the belief. It is not evidence showing there is no salvation.

Again it's not a hypothesis, it's an observable (a fact). Showing why a claim exists is important because if it's based on human psychology and not external objective events then we easily determine whether the content of the claim is true or false.


You have provided no evidence at all to support your claim that there is no salvation. If you raised these points in other contexts they might make for valid arguments. However you stated that objectively salvation is not real. You have provided no evidence of this. This does not mean you are wrong. It would be very hard to provide evidence of such a thing. But the fact that you confuse the above arguments with evidence of your assertion shows a deep misunderstanding of what evidence is.

The arguments are possible ways of attacking a believer when they set out to back up their claim that salvation is real. You can use them to counter these arguments or raise doubt about the reasons the believer has for believing.

But you yourself made an assertion. You asserted that salvation is not real. The above arguments on your part do not support this claim.

As I stated in the beginning of my responses, point taken. My assertion should have been directed at the human claim of salvation rather than the generic idea. What my points do show is the human claim of salvation being real are false. What they don't touch is whether or not some type of generic salvation exists somewhere in reality... but of course such an idea holds no more probability of being true as an invisible pink unicorn existing. It's basically unfalsifiable.

[Simon Anders]

So, if you want to be technical then you are correct in that it is not evidence that some weird generic salvation doesn't exists somewhere in reality... but that would be no more likely than being cursed by some generic zaboombafoo dimension. Sure, I am being technical about it. Otherwise you are making a claim to know something that I don't think you know or really want to make a claim to know. The logic would not work in science and it should not work here.


All scriptures that I am aware of that claim salvation are supposedly written by "perfect" life forms... usually omnipitent and omniscient. If you are perfect and know everything then to make a mistake drops the whole house of cards and exposes a scripture as a human invention... and that brings us back to claim samplings over a huge amount of time with zero supportive evidence... which brings us back to asking why the claim exists... and of course the answer becomes quite clear. Certainly some theologists would agree with you in your suppositions. But many believers allow slack in relation to the mortal scribes. They consider the gist true. If you have two people with opposing claims about a phenomenon you cannot point to these opposing claims and say both must be false because they disagree.



A hypothesis is an idea for testing. A fact is a consistent observation. This particular reflects how people make things up that are satisfying to fill in knowledge gaps. Its a natural behavior that can be observed in any society on earth. Humans tend to share alot of common desires (a big one being for their sapience to persist after death in paradise). We are difference detection machines compelled to persist after all.
But it was a hypothesis IN THIS CASE. Your application of what I agree is a common human trait IN THIS CASE is a hypothesis. It is not my fault it is hard to test. You are claiming to know what their belief is founded on. But you do not know this. It might be a good guess. It might be right. It might and probably does apply to many individuals. Etc. But to claim that everyone's belief is based on this human trait is a hypothesis.



Again it's not a hypothesis, it's an observable (a fact). Showing why a claim exists is important because if it's based on human psychology and not external objective events then we easily determine whether the content of the claim is true or false. No. It is a fact that people do this. It is not a fact that all religious people have their beliefs for the reason you cited. Your application in this case is a hypothesis.



As I stated in the beginning of my responses, point taken. My assertion should have been directed at the human claim of salvation rather than the generic idea. What my points do show is the human claim of salvation being real are false. What they don't touch is whether or not some type of generic salvation exists somewhere in reality... but of course such an idea holds no more probability of being true as an invisible pink unicorn existing. It's basically unfalsifiable.

My bold.

No, it does not do that. You have made excellent arguments against anyone claiming to have proven salvation and also against certain justifications for believing in it. Given that you admit that salvation might exist - I know, you consider it incredibly unlikely - you cannot know if their claims are correct. Unless you are claiming you know what can or cannot be known. I would be interested in examining your proof that if there was salvation there would be no possible way for anyone to know it.

I think it is a natural human trait for rationalists to want to close the door on notions like salvation even if to do this they must make claims that they cannot really make for the same reasons they attack believers claims.

If the focus remains on the CASE that believers make for why there is salvation, that is one thing.
But once claims are made about what must or must not be, the skeptic or rationalist must back this up. I did note you admitted my point here, but then the bolded portion runs back into the same problem.

You admitted that it might be possible that there is some kind of salvation.
If this is the case
then it seems to me human claims - are there others - could be true.
If you are claiming that even if salvation existed no one could know, then it seems to me you are making a lot of claims about what it is possible to know.

I will leave the debate there. My experience is the debate goes around in circles from here.

[Adstar]

Well you make a good point, that Christ went a preached to those who had died before He arrived on earth. Unfortunately that brings up a dilemma. If people are preached too after they die, and they get a chance to accept Christ, what's the point of evangelizing now?

To give people the opportunity to accept the good news before they die i guess. We can speculate as to the reason but the simple fact remains that Jesus told His followers to go out and give the Message to the world. Therefore we do not need to know the reason, it's an instruction from Jesus to His followers and His followers seek to do as they are guided too.




In fact, what was all the hubub that Paul did when he travelled the entire Graeco-Roman world trying to get as many people saved as he could?

He was doing what he was told to do. As a believer He was following Jesus.



Certainly if those who didn't get a chance to hear about Christ (the disobedient during Noah's time) then those who don't hear about Him today will also.

Irrespective of your point. Each one will need to respond to the message.



How exactly is this consistent?

It is consistent for followers of Jesus to seek to do what He told them to do.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat
“
and the businessman can verify the authenticity of the demonstration by what exactly?
”
If he had reason to doubt the authenticity of the demonstration he could replicate it on his own.
so in other words he could become something of a physicist?


the bhagavad gita is a nice simple concise one to reference

Purushottama claiming to be the primary source of energy on earth (taking credit for Sunlight) would be a good one.
so what does take credit for sunlight then (and I don't mean in the theoretical sense)?

”
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
probably why the business man in the example writes it off as a contradiction ....
”
If the business man doesn't hold reality as the highest 'authority' on truth then he has a personal limitation.
thats the point - degrees of truth or reality are dependent on certain skills of perception - certainly explains why judicial courts call upon forensic investigators instead of janitors

“[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
when you extend that all issues of personality (like for instance the notion of god being a person) are ultimately all projections of our humanity, you can't see the whopping great big wave of anthropomorphism you are riding?
”
Wouldn't that type of anthropomprhization be claiming human behavior is driven by external fantastic sapient life forms?
why use the word fantastic?

That's far different then pointing out how people are prone to fill in knowledge gaps with imagination.
so similarly it's your imagination at work when you adamantly hold that the final last expression of humanity or personhood in the universe finds its evidence on this planet

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no less humorous than your argument that conveniently steps outside of empiricism when you herald that all all arguments in reality must be empirical
”
Everything stated in the associated bullet about humans being judgmental and actively anthroporphizing is empirically observable.
sure
so when you say "some people sometimes make some mistakes" all you are saying is "some people sometimes make some mistakes" - tying that into a specific scenario (like theistic claims) for the greater glory of another one (like say science) is completely absurd since one can observe errors of judgment in all disciplines of knowledge

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I guess we can also but them along side with scientists making gross miscalculations while surmising the universe and its history
”
What's that fallacy about a competing unrelated argument substitution?
the fallacy is that one can use identical general principles of your argument to challenge any claim since errors are made everywhere

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and they are outside of group pressures because?
”
In the West it's unlikely that a group can affect another person's ability to survive as the individual is protected.
they don't have crime, law courts and police in your neighbourhood?

So while pressures might be present, there is no survival requirement to giving into those pressuires.

they don't have psychologists, psychiatrists or counselors in your neighbourhood either?