salvation

[Samuel]

Ah, bugger. That was going to be my point too - the concept of salvation, at least in a religious context, surely relies on being saved from some particular thing or state. What in a secular context would this be? Or can a non-religious concept of salvation dispense with it?

I suppose I view ithe concept of salvation rather obliquely. That is I ignore the face valaue religious claims. I am interested in what lurks behind or below it.

Salvation is a 'big' idea and there is value in big ideas in helping us talk about problems or challenges. Turning it into an issue of the individual, i.e. Salvation from one's self, kind of undermines that potential.

What could it be in a secular sense?... Climate change? Something like that? I guess I'm thinking of salvation as simply a linguistic device. Something that provides a slightly different framework within which to think about an issue.

Maybe it's like that coversation we had recently about sacredness. Perhaps the idea of salvation just appeals to me, or speaks to me, helps me think or whatever, but it doesn't work for everyone. Dunno.

[ippy]

Salvation, I like to look at these kind of problems, at a deeper intellectual level than I would in my normal every day life and it's not very easy to sum up salvation it's a deeply complicated subject.

Perhaps salvation could best be summed up as a complete load of old bollocks, yes I think that's a fair summary of this surprisingly deep and difficult subject.

Salvation, a head shakingly daft, empty concept.

ippy   

[BashfulAnthony]

Salvation, I like to look at these kind of problems, at a deeper intellectual level than I would in my normal every day life and it's not very easy to sum up salvation it's a deeply complicated subject.

Perhaps salvation could best be summed up as a complete load of old bollocks, yes I think that's a fair summary of this surprisingly deep and difficult subject.

Salvation, a head shakingly daft, empty concept.

ippy

That's why it appeals to you:  after all, you are here on the thread.  If you think so of the concept, then ignore it, eh?

[Rhiannon]

I suppose I view ithe concept of salvation rather obliquely. That is I ignore the face valaue religious claims. I am interested in what lurks behind or below it.

Salvation is a 'big' idea and there is value in big ideas in helping us talk about problems or challenges. Turning it into an issue of the individual, i.e. Salvation from one's self, kind of undermines that potential.

What could it be in a secular sense?... Climate change? Something like that? I guess I'm thinking of salvation as simply a linguistic device. Something that provides a slightly different framework within which to think about an issue.

Maybe it's like that coversation we had recently about sacredness. Perhaps the idea of salvation just appeals to me, or speaks to me, helps me think or whatever, but it doesn't work for everyone. Dunno.

When I lost my faith the biggest liberation for me was realising that we save ourselves. And what that means to me is that instead of relying on God to get me out of the shit, I have to do it for myself. Maybe with the help of others sometimes. I don't think it's so much about 'could do better' as 'we can do this'.

[Bubbles]

I'm not keen on the idea of salvation because of what it actually does, as an idea.

It allows you to be controlled by other human beings.

Look how the idea of salvation is thought to rest in other people's hands, how people end up thinking they have to go to church, believe certain things, support some power structure.

( to Christians here, you might see it better if you look at something like the JW, but it applies across the board)

The whole thing gives authority over you, to someone else.

If someone tries to live a good life, and does a few things wrong, they shouldn't have to constantly have to beat themselves up over it.

This guilt thing, and the idea of salvation together form a sort of emotional blackmail.

If there is a creator out there, and ultimately it's about love, no one needs another person to intercede on their behalf.

People try and insert themselves between you and the creator. If it exists, IMO you don't need that.

There is an assumption that a creator expects you to be perfect.

But we evolved/were created imperfect, maybe for a reason 

Perhaps a creator would expect you to do the best you can, with what you've got.

 

I don't think much of the concept of salvation tbh, it always looks like emotional manipulation on behalf of groups or individuals.

Nothing to do with any creator IMO.


I'm with others here when they say they ( and me)  have to make amends to people they have hurt.

If they can't, sending them on a guilt trip, does nothing for me at all.

It's an attempt to control them IMO .

[Dicky Underpants]

Indeed - lovely post.

To me the brevity and uncertainty of life and the finality of death make it all the more, not less, important not only to make amends for past wrongs but to endeavour to live in such a way as to make future contrition unnecessary. There is no option to defer the grand righting of wrongs to some highly dubious (to say the very least) future state and shuffle off all my wrongs onto some equally dubious figure. That would be a prime example of what Sartre called mauvaise foi, or bad faith - inauthenticity.

Well, thank you. And I agree with every word of yours. I'm sure neither of us can think of anyone blatantly exhibiting mauvaise foi around here, can we? 

[Jack Knave]

In Jungian terms salvation could be described as becoming more conscious and integrating those aspects and gifts that remain in the unconscious that never became fully integrated into one's personality and character when one was growing up - some things in our early years just have to be left for a later date.

[Nearly Sane]

I may have mentioned this before, JK, but The Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies is a picaresque mystery story with heavy Jungian influences including one character going through Jungian analysis. You might enjoy it.

[Shaker]

I don't know if JK is interested but I am, so thanks for reminding me to check it out 

[Jack Knave]

I don't know if JK is interested but I am, so thanks for reminding me to check it out 

I don't read novels only things that provide me with information or ideas in some form or other.

[Samuel]

I don't read novels only things that provide me with... ...ideas in some form or other.

It's that what a good novel does?

[Jack Knave]

It's that what a good novel does?

It isn't specific in providing such things, only in a round about way or undercurrent, which means there's lots of superfluous waffle and chit-chat which I hate. They usually pose questions with no real substantial discourse towards some form of an answer. I like books focused on a topic or subject and provide in depth discussive analysis.

[Spud]

hmm .. this is something I've never understood. Saved from what?

Saved from God's wrath on the day of judgment.

.. and what is it like once you are "saved"?

Well, you know you won't face God's wrath when you die, so it's rather good.

[floo]

Saved from God's wrath on the day of judgment.
Well, you know you won't face God's wrath when you die, so it's rather good.

You have no evidence to support those statements!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have no evidence to support those statements!

It's the kind of thing that initially looks like Tolkeinian fantasy but let's dig a little deeper. It should be treated as fanciful nonsense but rarely is by those who oppose it who find it abhorrent. Abhorrent enough to twist the part about dying in and through one's own sins....to be in one's own place to twist the claim into God being some giant pulling the legs of little innocent insects.

Of course at the base of it the unreasonable level of outrage that shouldn't be cause if there was absolutely no quiet doubt that there might be something in it.....is really due to the claims questioning the moral goodness that the ego perceives of itself.......in the absence of actual evidence.

If there was nothing in it.....why the reaction it gets?

[floo]

It's the kind of thing that initially looks like Tolkeinian fantasy but let's dig a little deeper. It should be treated as fanciful nonsense but rarely is by those who oppose it who find it abhorrent. Abhorrent enough to twist the part about dying in and through one's own sins....to be in one's own place to twist the claim into God being some giant pulling the legs of little innocent insects.

Of course at the base of it the unreasonable level of outrage that shouldn't be cause if there was absolutely no quiet doubt that there might be something in it.....is really due to the claims questioning the moral goodness that the ego perceives of itself.......in the absence of actual evidence.

If there was nothing in it.....why the reaction it gets?

Because unfortunately a lot of gullible people take it seriously!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because unfortunately a lot of gullible people take it seriously!

No........... because people's egos are outraged by the message that they are not quite what they are cracked up to be.

[Shaker]

No........... because people's egos are outraged by the message that they are not quite what they are cracked up to be.

No, Floo was definitely right

[Hope]

Because unfortunately a lot of gullible people take it seriously!

An an equally large number of gullible people fail to take it seriously.  Take religion out of the equation, and the idea that the human race is in need of salvation - from the global economic divide; the climate change tsunami that is likely to hit the world in the next few decades (if not sooner); the terrorist threats divide; etc. - is no less a valid issue.  I realise that we in the West like to minimise the matter, but that is no better than hiding our proverbial heads in the sand.

[Shaker]

An an equally large number of gullible people fail to take it seriously.

What gullibility is involved in not accepting an entirely unevidenced let alone unproven concept?

[floo]

What gullibility is involved in not accepting an entirely unevidenced let alone unproven concept?

Good question!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What gullibility is involved in not accepting an entirely unevidenced let alone unproven concept?

So you are saying the global predicament for humanity is completely unevidenced.

That individual acquisitive materialism has no contribution to the global solution?

That no matter how we try to improve ourselves individually we always seem to fall short or we blame others who have fallen shorter.

[Shaker]

So you are saying the global predicament for humanity is completely unevidenced.

That individual acquisitive materialism has no contribution to the global solution?

That no matter how we try to improve ourselves individually we always seem to fall short or we blame others who have fallen shorter.

No. I'm saying that the idea that humanity qua humanity has something to be saved from, of which it stands in need of outside (i.e. other than human) assistance, is twaddle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I'm saying that the idea that humanity qua humanity has something to be saved from, of which it stands in need of outside (i.e. other than human) assistance, is twaddle.

Shaker breaks into Ethel Merman mode and starts singing ''Everything's coming up roses''.

[Bubbles]

I think most people know they are not perfect, but they are reluctant to allow others to use their weaknesses, to tell them what to think and believe.

Which is what Christianity is trying to do with its message of fallen man/woman.

People won't accept that.

It's not their egos, but the manipulation many object to.