Who can be saved? A Christian perspective

IMHO, as a Christian, anyone can be saved whether or not they acknowledge or profess a belief in Jesus or even GOD. In fact, even if they deny the existence of GOD they can and will likely be saved.So to others out there, whether you are Christian, one of the other Judaic faiths, agnostic or even athiest, what do you think? Who can be saved and how do you support your position?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

That's fair enough Jar. But as long as you realize that that is indeed your opinion.As for what I think, my topic concerning not judging I suppose, is what I think. I think that what Christ says and has said is what counts. Who is saved and who is not; I will judge not, for all will stand before the judgement seat of Christ, including me.I see you preach the above a lot, about being saved without Christ etc... Make sure to inform people that it's not what the bible says, but what you say.

Actually, I have seen Christian use the bible to justify their belief that even 'non-believers' will be saved.From a Jewish perspective, the concept of Salvation is for this world, not the next one, so the Christian concept of 'being saved' is absent
and unneeded.From an athiestic point of view, it is a load of superstion , based on belief in an imaginary friend.

Listen, if this is supposed to provoke outrage it sure is weak. I couldn't care what your view point is concerning Christ. I have said nothing against this. All I'm saying is that this opinion is theirs. Do not look "too much" into my statement, and therefore derive implications that don't exist.

Jar,I come in here with a semantic and nondual approach.1.any "one", who or what is this one, that is, what is the entity that is to be saved in your view? [I thinking orthodox Christians think along with Paul that there is a bodily resurrection only not a flesh body, which I find very unhelpful, but there it is]2. "saved" means this resurrection body with an earth memory, personality, and skills will live in heaven and never die and sing praise or something for an infinite span of time?I'm just saying what comes to mind when I read your statement. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or claim that is what you've said but I think the concept of what salvation is and who is saved are very close to the crux of the religion and close to where it's key concepts break down semantically, at least for the more literal theologies.lfen

I have at least always tried to make sure that folk know that I'm only speaking from my opinion. In fact, none of us can do any more than that. We are all only reflecting our own position.But my beliefs are also Biblically based.Jesus said that there are two commandments, Love god and the two parter, love others as you love yourself.Basically, that's it, love GOD and love others as you love yourself.So the question is, "Do you have to acknowledge GOD or even believe in GOD to Love GOD?"IMHO and according to the Bible, the answer is "No. You can love GOD without acknowledging GOD or even if you deny GOD's very existence."If you examine Matthew 25 31:46, it is pretty clear what is needed to love GOD. And when you read that, there is nothing about professing GOD or Jesus, nothing about being a Jew or Christian, nothing about being religious. In fact, many who profess a belief in Jesus, who are good Christians, Jews or Muslims, will certainly be Goats and not sheep while many atheists and agnostics will certainly be sheep and not goats. The Rule of St. Attila of The Endless Tabedited to add link to St. Attla of the Endless TabThis message has been edited by jar, 09-11-2004 04:05 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know. I doubt very much that there is or will ever be any bodily resurection. I hope not. I cannot imagine a worse hell than sitting around singing praises for eternity. Puppy love is fine when you're a pre-teen but I have to believe that an afterlife must be something with a little more substance to it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, again - I'd rather not cross that barrier Jar. Where exactly does it say this thing?? Now Highlighted in yellow - this is judging who and who will not go, which I'd rather not do. However, I recall something that Jesus said that might have vaguely encouraged you to say this. In that, he said many would claim to know him etc. However, how you can say the above in yellow and claim biblical backing without a quote here and now, is beyond me. Please provide that quote to end my confusion.Also, in the New Testament, "saved by grace" - has this escaped you?However, I am aware of the seperation of the sheep from the goats. You often provide this quote.Yet I don't think cutting God out is necessarily "it". Why you promote this all the time escapes me. As for those who come to Christ, "I will in no wise cast out".You see, "the wrath of God abideth" on him that hasn't believed in the only begotten son, IS ALSO mentioned.I am telling you this because your selling the parts that fit your opinion in the NT, and not mentioning these other parts of Christ's words.I am not against your notion, but I think it is certainly your own notion, and no one can know for sure, as you said, it is our opinion. Therefore, preaching those other things Christ said is also necessary - whether he meant them or not, let Christ judge.Otherwise this is the Gospel according to Jar.

Well, actually, Jesus said in no uncertain terms that there were two commandments, and that all the Laws and Prophecy hang on those two commandments. So when there are additions to the Bible that conflict with those two commandments, then I must stop and ask if those additions are really what GOD would think or simply something to help the franchise.And frankly, most of the insertions that seem to be solely to improve the franchise don't stand up when related to the two commandments.In addition, as I have said before, GOD and Jesus were not bling-bling pimp-daddies that would get upset when someone disrespected them. A being that could think this universe into existence, that could intuitively understand the relationship between gravity and the other forces, is not someone who would get his nose out of joint because someone says he doesn't exist. GOD is not small and petty, he is not a pimply faced teenager mooning because his love isn't returned. He did not create this universe for mankind, we are only a very recent addition, and it is only our egocentric nature that makes us believe we are anything special.As to my belief that many Jews, Christians and Muslims will not be saved, I think the cleansing of the temple was a pretty good sign. Even Jesus death and resurection support that idea. Afterall, it was not the atheists and agnostics that were threatened by his life and ministry, but the franchise owners themselves.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar,It appears to me the core dynamic of Christianity addresses inequality, injustice and fear of death with a remediation formula that is claimed to result in saving those who comply and not saving those who don't.I am contrasting the Christian offering with the Buddhist concept of salvation. The Mahayana Buddhist vow to "not enter into nirvana until all sentient beings are saved" is fulfilled with the clear insight that "from the very beginning no sentient beings have existed".I am offering a criticism of Christianity not based on the veracity of the Bible, but rather on the accuracy of the key concept of someone who is to be saved or lost. Who or what is this someone? If we can't produce an entity than salvation and damnation are moot.Examing myself I find an material organism and a consciousness with access to awareness of memories, concepts, skills, emotion, perceptions. I suspect that the concept of a person arises because we have memories that we have identified as our "self". I'm only sketching in broad strokes the nature of the problem.Generally Christian theology has glossed over this problem with the notion of a soul. It seems to me that soul is the way theology has factored consciousness into the schema.Well I won't go further with this now. I am curious if you see a possiblity of the Buddha's position making sense, and if that is the case how that might effect your ideas about salvation.lfen

Actually, I thought that the Mahayana Buddhist vow was to put off enlightenment until they have helped all beings to enlightenment. But that very concept is as hard to define and understand as the Christian concept of soul. We are limited both by concept and language, afterall there is no single word or even combination of words that accurately reflect the meaning of Dukkha, Karma, Samsara, Vipaka and even Enlightenment. There are even differences between the Buddhist and Hindu understanding of very basic terms like Karma and Nirvana. Or they are personal. Is Enlightenment the same for each individual?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, "put off" amounts to the same thing I said. The task is clearly impossible until the understanding of "no sentient beings exist". As far as I can tell each human being as an individual organism has a unique personal experience and expression of "awakening". In English, I think "awakening" serves better than "enlightenment" as it is quite natural for English speakers to speak of enlightenment as something someone has. As the nondual can only be spoken of in dualistic language it's important to realize that no one is ever enlightened or awakened. The disappearance of the sense of being an individual is enlightenment, but there is no one left to be enlightened, or awakened.One teaching example using this metaphor is when you awaken from some bad dream of a disaster striking a group of people you don't ask what happened to the people, or try to go back to sleep to save them from the dream. Why? Because waking up you realize that those people were only dreamed by you.The bit that I've dipped into The Gospel of Thomas does give a bit more support to the notion my brother has that Yeshuah was an awakened individual trying to teach the non dual to people who basically failed to get it. If he died young he had very little chance to transmit his understanding and it got recast in the old molds.Your point about vocabulary is right on. One of the reasons I'm so impressed with Bernadette Roberts' book is that she awoke within the contemporary Catholic Christian contemplative tradition and was about as naive about Buddhism and eastern nondualism as one could be in these times. So she has narrated her experience in contemporary Enlish and using Christian concepts.Yet, when I read her book I was very excited to read the depth of her understanding. Towards the end of her search she did turn to the east basically looking for someone who had experienced what she had experienced and recognized in a brief passage attributed to the Buddha her own experience in another's words.She lost her self, completely and irrevocably, all that remains is God which she also refers to as What Is. Now, Buddhism does not use theistic language while Advaita Vedanta does. I believe they both recognize the same reality. If you take this notion of What Is Real, this can be a basis for your statement that different religions worship the same God. That is religions when they aren't social institution can address the search for ultimate reality. That reality is One. Or as a Jewish friend of mine said, "That's what Judaism says, it's all One." There is no way we can be apart from it or other than it in reality, hence it is our minds, imaginations, thoughts that have created a story of separation. This enthrallment which can be likened to a fall, a fall into sleep and dreams, only has the conditioned reality of our believing it. It is a powerful sleep but not as powerful as What Is.lfen

Hangdawg,If you have any response to this I would very much appreciate hearing about it. I know you are busy. I feel I am finally getting a clearer verbal expression of my path. And given the dualistic subject/object structure of language it's very difficult to find words that are at all adequate.lfen

Yes, I know, but he also said those other things which you didn't address.Okay Jar, fair enough, as I say - I'm not against you but I think it odd that you preach a message which says you don't even have to bother to believe. How can anyone recieve that which is from God if they dismiss him? Does it not feed the self-righteouss such a message? And encourage ego's to think that they "know it all" in this age? Erm....?, Well, I didn't say he was. How about answering my post instead of forcing this on to me?Nevertheless, are you Christ that your opinion rules that which God thinks? How can you know whether he is upset? I see your point. Yet that won'r mean all atheists are some special kind of people. Yet you seem to support them more than any other group. Why is this?So, I still think you are picking and choosing what you think is what God meant. Yet I hear many interpretations of scripture, and I am confident that God can judge who will go to heaven without me saying a thing. Why should I give heed to Jar's Gospel though? Listen, I get upset for him, but I never said he gets upset. Where is this rant going to?.Sorry Jar but is this catholicism speaking? I'm not catholic.