Salvation through Christ: Unique to Christianity or applicable to other faiths?

[Dawnofhope]

I dunno if it's much a case of salvation as it is that religions seem to center on a perception by which a problem exists that needs "correction or fixing" and further prescribes a remedy through it's tenets.

Isn't that what every religion does?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Isn't that what every religion does?

I think so. At least from what I can tell. Buddhism is no exception either.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think so. At least from what I can tell. Buddhism is no exception either.

That is the point of the initial OP. All religions provide a path towards a better way of life, and we have different understandings based on the culture context of who we follow. Many Christians of course argue that there is no such similarity and only through Christ can we truly find our way.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The joker trumps the ace!

Haha. I was talking as if you were Christian. Don't know how to approach christian questions from a Bahai influence. hmm.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is the point of the initial OP. All religions provide a path towards a better way of life, and we have different understandings based on the culture context of who we follow. Many Christians of course argue that there is no such similarity and only through Christ can we truly find our way.

I dunno about a better way of life overall. Maybe a more pragmatic approach to life and better understanding would better serve in some religious settings. ;0)

I think it depends upon how one interprets and defines things. That's where a number of similarities end, thereby prompting the course of action a person takes respective to one's worldview, and how those experiences and sensations are recieved.

I think religion in general approaches those same type of experiences and sensations that we all universally share as human beings, and interprets differently based upon how it's being recieved and presented, defining arising problems both real and precieved, and issues a course of action and base remedies in attempts to recitify whatever is on the table.

Weither that is salvation or introspection, I think there exists unique qualities and approaches for what is essentally the same actuality or state of being by which we live and think.

 

[Dawnofhope]

When I love someone, it isn't symbolic. I am actually and literally in love with that person. We can't "see" love and that does not mean it does not actually exist. What we call love is a combination of actual experiences, feelings, and emotions. It isn't symbolic.

However you might decide to get married and wear wedding rings. Those rings would symbolise your enduring union and love for each other.

So that means you aren't carrying actual burdens (you don't have challenges and troubles) because they are all symbolic?

Of course we are carrying burdens. The cross helps us to connect our experiences to Jesus and reminds us of the burdens Jesus carried. The cross symbolises those burdens. Other prophets of God and religious founders carried great burdens too, and made sacrifices for the sake of their followers.

I have Epilepsy and that is a burden/cross that I have to carry. If it's symbolic, I can take a placebo medication and I can pray for my seizures to cease and it will work because it's not literal. It's all in my head.

Epilepsy is in your head literally (medical fact). It manifests itself through seizures. The phrase 'all in your head' is a figure of speech that would be incorrectly used and even insulting if used to describe your condition because in this context it has an entirely different meaning. Presumably it is not something you have control over and can just turn on and off. We need discernment as to how we use language in what circumstances. We need to understand when sacred texts are literal or being used to convey spiritual truths. Sometimes it is both and may be referred to as an allegory. The story of Christ's crucifixion is an excellent example of this.

Okay, you are now saying it is real. How can it be real when you just said that carrying your cross is symbolic? I carry actual burdens. To many people "christ manifest in the spirit" is just as real as my typing on this lap top. Unless we are taking placebo pills and experiences, what in this is symbolic? Especially when you say it is also real.

Carrying your cross is symbolic because you are not actually carrying a cross. It is a biblical allegory to help you understand that your burdens are like the burdens Jesus carried, and through living the life Jesus exemplified, you can rise above your lower nature and live the spiritual life. The life we once lived was real. The life we live now is real and if we are 'carrying our cross' that means living the life Jesus lived. The cross helps us understand we need to 'die to self, to live in God.'

If it's symbolic and not literal, how do you do that? I can express it in poetry but to actually give up something for the sake of god is not just thinking of the meaning behind it but the actual, literal action that defines "giving up" means. Yes, we can repent symbolically but without that physical repentance, what does it really mean (if you're not a poet, that is)?

We need to repent, and the story of the prodigal son may assist us to understand God's forgiveness. The significance of the prodigal son story is not whether or not it actually happened, but to help us understand God's Grace and Forgiveness.

Many people can learn from symbolism. In this case, Christianity says that christ actually existed, died on the cross (a historical event), was resurrected in spirit (and some say in body as well) to be back with his father.

Would it not be more "powerful" to know that christ actually died to help you?

Christianity is full of symbolism from baptism with water that symbolised purity, the bread that is the Body of Christ (the church), with wine that is the New Covenant, to the cross that teaches us to sacrifice the old for the new for His sake.

Of course Christ died to help us. Why else would He have accepted to be crucified?

The stories of Christ walking on water, enabling the blind to see, assisting the lame of walk, and the dead to live are all metaphorical. They may be literally true but their significance is the spiritual message they convey. Through Christ's teaching we can rise above the troubles of this earthly life, have spiritual sight, walk the spiritual path, and have eternal life.

I mean, if I were drowning and someone said that my mother putting her hand in the water to help me was symbolic, I'd think "okay, am I imagining things then? If it's all in the meaning, I'd drown." but if it was a physical salvation (as such in christianity) then the person is actually saved. It goes beyond meaning.

Sometimes it is literal and sometimes it is symbolic or allegorical. What mother would not try to save their drowning daughter? It would be ridiculous to put her hand in the water only as a symbol.

That's the issue. Symbolic christianity just doesn't work in mainstream christianity. From a bahai view, of course meaning comes first. In other religions it's a combination of traditions, language, and culture. The rituals, dogma, and doctrine are the meaning. If you separate them, you have no symbolic or literal sacrifice. So...

I wonder if we are saying the same thing in different ways? Naturally we need traditions, language, and culture. But we also need to recognise when to sacrifice the old, to give way to the new. When Jesus talked about being born again, did he mean literally or did He have something else in mind?

Doctrine and dogma are fine if from God, but may also be negative if it has outlived its usefulness or is a man made barrier to truth (eg the doctrine of original sin).

Yes. (If I don't forget which thread I'm posting on) in this case, I don't agree with religious experiences as symbolic. People actually had human sacrifices. People have animal sacrifices. These things aren't symbolic or myths. These happen in history. Their religious nature doesn't change the facts that people did things in reality.

Experiences are real. The symbolism in scripture helps us to make sense of our experiences and to know the right way. Christ's sacrifice has nothing to do with blood sacrifices of ancient cultures, for example when a virgin is stabbed to death at an alter to appease the gods of old. God did not require animal sacrifices or a human sacrifice. He simply commanded animal sacrifices in the Old Testament to educate us about how we should be devoted to Him only. It was a means to wean people off the gods of old (eg Baal and the golden calf).

However one wants to take these events and make them personal depends on the person. But the event isn't symbolic. Just a lot of people see it that way. Doesn't harm anyone unless you are talking about people's devotion to christ. If christ is symbolic so is there devotion. It's one thing to say you yourself believe this it's a whole nother thing to say this as a fact for others who share a literal connection with christ not a symbolic one.

The event can be symbolic though. It is real but the allegory teaches us something profound.

Haha. I was talking as if you were Christian. Don't know how to approach christian questions from a Bahai influence. hmm.

I was a Christian and when I recognised Christ in Baha'u'llah so became a Baha'i, like the early Jews turning to Christ as they recognised their Messiah.

Are we making progress?

 

[Windwalker]

I agree with everything you have said. So enlightenment and salvation are similar concepts expressed different ways in accordance with the different cultures from which those teachings arose.

I believe at their heart they are. The end result is we are freed, or liberated, or saved from suffering and illusion, or sin. All of those are falling short of the mark, and those with a heart to be released from this recognize it in themselves. Hence the many paths to "overcome", each trying this and that, systemizing them within some school of thought or teachings, which are often then packaged in some sort of story or another.

The stories of Jesus for instance are really not about telling historical facts. Those are ultimately irrelevant. Rather the stories are about being a vehicle for the truths within the stories to be held by the mind and acted upon by the heart. This is the nature of mythologies. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer-stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Those that literalize the stories, miss the deeper truth within them, like arguing how perfect this key they found is in its shapes and contours, but fail to understand it's just a tool you use to unlock a door and walk through, then put it away in your pocket to use later on if you need to.

We have degrees of salvation (enlightenment) in both this world and the next.

I'll share an interesting perspective with you to provoke some thought on this. I like to put it this way. We are all already fully enlightened, but we just aren't enlightened to the fact of that yet. There are solid reasons why I say this. The most obvious one is that of "peak experiences". There is a great deal of a lack of understanding of these, but in essence at any given point in someone's life they may have a full enlightenment experience. I have myself had this where all the curtains are pulled back and you see and experience everything just as it is, full of Light, Life, and Love, or Satchitananda - Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

This is not something you "attain", in the sense that you work yourself up a ladder and that is the end result of your efforts, like big muscles are the result of working out at the gym. You basically go from a skinny little child to a world-class athlete in an instant, in less than a nanosecond. So that sudden shift of one's very being from living in shrouded darkness (comparatively speaking), to fully enlightened mind in a split second, like a lightning strike as is spoken of in Buddhism and represented in the Varja, says that this is not the result of effort, but a prior-condition you are simply accessing. It was already there the whole time. All that is happening is you are ripping back the curtain and exposing it!

What "degrees" there are which you touch upon, is another arm of this path of Enlightenment or Salvation. Peak experiences are momentary openings of our awareness into that Source of all being within us and the world. But they subsided in a relatively short period of time afterward and we fall back into our regular habits of life and mind. To develop practices, such as a regular meditation practice, is key to training the mind to specifically learn how to in fact let go of all the stuff we hold that blocks us from that Enlightened state we already have. You see where I am going here?

Though we already are fully within God in the fact of our being, to learn to live in an enlightened state, to live as a "child of God" is in fact a matter of development. We have to grow. We have to learn to integrate this Enlightenment into our daily lives. I love how the Apostle Paul touches on this, even if he didn't expressly understand it in the way I am talking to it,

"And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

~2 Cor. 3:18​

You see? So it's not a "salvation of works" in that sense. One does not truly "achieve Enlightenment". Rather, all we doing in our efforts, it to learn how to make no-effort at all, and simply let it Be in us, as it already fully is. It's all much more simple that way, and far less cause for the ego to believe it achieved something great, and thus not being Enlightened at all.

So how come so many Christians struggle to see the universality of the principles that underpin Christ on the cross?

Isn't that the $64,000,000 question? The reason really has to do with stages of faith development. I'd recommend if you are interested in reading James Fowler's research in his book Stages of Faith. This basic very high-level chart here gives a quick overview of the stages. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

Those who are at Stage 3 cannot yet do what happens at Stage 4, which is being able to hold the meaning of the symbol apart from the symbol itself. In Stage 3, the meaning and the symbol are fused, and so if someone doesn't have their symbol, let's say Jesus on the cross, then they do not have access to the meaning of it, namely salvation. Therefore, non-Christians are not, and cannot be saved in their minds, because they don't represent and hold Jesus in the same ways they do.

Stage 4 faith can "decouple" the meaning from the symbol and see that same meaning found in other symbols. It's clear to me that both you and I are probably at least at that stage, since we can and do. At any rate, this is some good information I think you may find useful. I enjoy being able to talk about these things at this level, so by all means, let's continue!

 

[Windwalker]

Naturally we need traditions, language, and culture. But we also need to recognise when to sacrifice the old, to give way to the new.

I have to say reading your responses to Carlita sound's remarkably like the way I would try to convey this. I find it's often a challenge to talk about how a symbol is not "just a symbol" or "merely a symbol", but are in fact far, far more powerful than the facts the symbolic meaning are attached to. Think of it like this. If someone actually found "God" as an actual person, it would be more like finding a bigfoot. Once you pulled it out of myth a put it in a lab to dissect it, all the power of imagination vanishes. It's no longer a Mystery. Symbols are vehicles for the soul to transcend the limits of the mind.

But the real point for quoting what you said above was to share a quote from the Buddha I think captures this. "To insist on a spiritual practice that served you in the past is to carry the raft on your back after you have crossed the river." The point is the result, not the raft. Symbols are rafts for the soul to cross the river. Once you've crossed over, that symbol has served its purpose. When you meet the next river, you find another raft laying at that shore's edge to help ferry you across to the next shoreline.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let me ask. Which is more powerful to you symbolism or literalism? (I know both, but asking either or)

However you might decide to get married and wear wedding rings. Those rings would symboli

To me its literal. Call it paganitis. Why have a ring if it is just symbolic. Save money, stay home, and watch tv instead.

Of course we are carrying burdens. The cross helps us to connect our experiences to Jesus and reminds us of the burdens Jesus carried. The cross symbolises those burdens. Other prophets of God and religious founders carried great burdens to

Without jesus actually dying on the cross, he cross wouldnt exist nor would a christians recognition of inherited sin.

I can pretty much learn from anything symbolic. If I want to believe in facts, Id go a straight beyond meaning and appreciate not just what the art represents but the actual paints, texture, canvas, and so forth. These arent just tools. They make up meaning. They are meaning. Cant separate them.

Since christians actually experience he passion (ive seen it. Its like if someonebhad a tramatic experience and have PTSD. They are reliving the real incident even though they are not physically there. Their experiences etc are real. Id never call it symbolic or illusionary. But im not a therapist, so.

We need to understand when sacred texts are literal or being used to convey spiritual truths. Sometimes it is both and may be referred to as an allegory. The story of Christ's crucifixion is an excellent example of this.

Its like my drowning and a symbolic mother reaches in to save me. Will I drown?

Some things must be literal for it to make sense. Symbolic avation doesnt cut it.

Carrying your cross is symbolic because you are not actually carrying a cross. I

Youre focused on words. I cant actually "hear" what youre saying but I use the term cause when I read, I have a voice in my head. The voice wouldnt be there without an actual text. Whether one calls it hear or see is up to me. Just english has lot of metaphors.

In christianity, a lot of it is literal. Withiut a literal mother there is no literal salvation. Going from their perspective not my own. Thats the difference.

Of course Christ died to help us. Why else would He have accepted to be crucified?

How does a symbolic person die for you?

. When Jesus talked about being born again, did he mean literally or did He have something else in mind?

He meant literally. When people literally die in christ they actually shed their sins. God literally forgives them and as a result they litterally change their mind to christ.

You are looking at words. When people commemorate the lord supper they arent saying they go back in time. Its literal because they TOO are the body and when you see them together, they are literally at the lords supper.

Trying to figure how to explain it better

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

Take communion. Of course christians cant go back in time to sit and eat with christ. Most people think its symbolism. The umf is just not there though.

In catholicism, it is viewed differently. (I use catholics since its so misinterpreted for its meaning of literal)

When people come together the spirit of christ (the body/mass/people) is present. This literal presence of the spirit brings actual people together.

I mean people who had suppers throughout scripture never said their supper is the same as those before them. Its link and it doesnt end but celebrated three times a day in some areas and twice in most churches here.

Another example is before my grandmother passed away she always fixed dinner. Big meal especially during thanksgiving.

When she passed away, we still came together as a family. Its not like she disappeared. We arent remembering her with the meal but actually know that she is present just by us coming together as a family as she wanted. To call it symbolism is basically making a spiritual experience that of a naturalist. I dont see it that way.

This is how my friend explained it to me about the food and eucharist. I didnt get it before i was confirmed though I went to mass with her for almost five years. After the sacraments i got the literalism. I notice indoctrinated people dont see it that way. I think the best way to come into religion is not indoctrination. You appreciate the rituals more.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You can't have the other until you have saving faith.

Of course you can. Do you think the good Samaritan needed to have the right faith to help a Jew who was left for dead?

The Bible is very clear in simple easy to understand English that works play no part in our salvation(Eph 2:8-9)

You are simply ignoring the quotes that support deeds, and highlighting the ones the emphasise Grace.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James 2:14-26

Faith in God and in what He says---Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. No mention of works.

There is above!

The Bible clearly says works do not save. Do your really think a Christian fundamentalist will give that up?

It clearly doesn't.

Every religion is legalistic (salvation depends on our conduct) except Christianity makes salvation dependent on faith alone. Atually on grace alone. IMO, that alone, which is beyond man's ability to invent, makes Christianity the only true religion. If one accepts salvation by grace alone, not of work, there is no hard stuff about how one is saved.

I'm not certain you understand Christianity let alone other religions.

 

[omega2xx]

Of course you can. Do you think the good Samaritan needed to have the right faith to help a Jew who was left for dead?

The good Samaritan was not working on faith, he was working on compassion, and his good deed did no tgive him saving faith. The main teaching of that Parable is that Jesus is the good Samaritan. the man left dead is mankind. the robbers are Satan and his demons, and the inn is the church.

You are simply ignoring the quotes that support deeds, and highlighting the ones the emphasize Grace.

Not at all, I am putting them in there Biblical order of importance.

What does it profit

, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

Saving faith does good deeds. No good deeds, no saving faith.

Jas 2:14 - What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works, can that save him?
Jas 2:17 - Even so faith,k if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

When Abraham was saved, declared righteous, he had not done any good works.

If you take that verse and bump it against Heb 11:17 you see that what is called works in James is called faith in Hebrews. His faith came first. Wihtout faith in God, he woudl never have consented to slay his son.

Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James 2:14-26

Same thing with Rahab. What is called works in James is called faith in Hebrew(Heb 11:31). However lets go back to th2 story in Joshua. The people knew what God had done to Shion and Og(Josh 2:10). There for she put her faith in the God of heaven and earth(josh 2:11). Her faith made her so what is called a good work.

There is above!



It clearly doesn't.

I don't remember what those 2 comments refer to.

I'm not certain you understand Christianity let alone other religions.

That is an amusing statement coming from a non-Christian, who can't understand the Bible saying a Christian who has seriously studied the Bible for over 40 years , does not understand the Bible. You are half right, I don't understand other religions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Let me ask. Which is more powerful to you symbolism or literalism? (I know both, but asking either or)

Lets turn that around. What is more important, the body or the spirit? Both of course.

To me its literal. Call it paganitis. Why have a ring if it is just symbolic. Save money, stay home, and watch tv instead.

Abdu'l-Baha talks about the spiritual and physical aspects of a marriage.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 117-118

I've never heard the word paganitis before!?

Without jesus actually dying on the cross, he cross wouldnt exist nor would a christians recognition of inherited sin.

This is interesting because one of the points of this OP is to highlight that the Manifestations of God sacrifice themselves in different ways. The Bab and Christ were both martyred for what they believed in and died for our salvation. However the other manifestations of God have suffered to. Baha'u'llah spend 40 years of HIs life in prison or exile.

Since christians actually experience he passion (ive seen it. Its like if someonebhad a tramatic experience and have PTSD. They are reliving the real incident even though they are not physically there. Their experiences etc are real. Id never call it symbolic or illusionary. But im not a therapist, so.

Christians are experiencing the passion because they are re-enacting what happened. However their re-enactment isn't the actual event. Christ isn't getting crucified again. The scene is created so you experience and feel that He is. The experience is real, the re-enactment is illusory.

He meant literally. When people literally die in christ they actually shed their sins. God literally forgives them and as a result they litterally change their mind to christ.

You are looking at words. When people commemorate the lord supper they arent saying they go back in time. Its literal because they TOO are the body and when you see them together, they are literally at the lords supper.

Words are important. They cloak a story with meaning and allegorical significance. That is the most important aspect of the bread and the wine. It helps us understand that community of Faithful believers (the church) and the Covenant.

Take communion. Of course christians cant go back in time to sit and eat with christ. Most people think its symbolism. The umf is just not there though.

In catholicism, it is viewed differently. (I use catholics since its so misinterpreted for its meaning of literal)

When people come together the spirit of christ (the body/mass/people) is present. This literal presence of the spirit brings actual people together.

I mean people who had suppers throughout scripture never said their supper is the same as those before them. Its link and it doesnt end but celebrated three times a day in some areas and twice in most churches here.

I accept that Catholics have a different experience than protestants.

Another example is before my grandmother passed away she always fixed dinner. Big meal especially during thanksgiving.

When she passed away, we still came together as a family. Its not like she disappeared. We arent remembering her with the meal but actually know that she is present just by us coming together as a family as she wanted. To call it symbolism is basically making a spiritual experience that of a naturalist. I dont see it that way.

That's a good example, as your grandmother lives in your hearts and is part of the spirit of your family. But is her soul actually present?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Lets turn that around. What is more important, the body or the spirit? Both of course.

Nope. I asked either or.

Me is literalism. I can get morals from symbolism but the "spirit" doesnt feel right if it doesnt actually exist. Makes it sound fake.

This is interesting because one of the points of this OP is to highlight that the Manifestations of God sacrifice themselves in different ways. The Bab and Christ were both martyred for what they believed in and died for our salvation. However the other manifestations of God have suffered to. Baha'u'llah spend 40 years of HIs life in prison or exile.

I remember my priest told me of a story of a woman dying from terminal illness. Her children beside her. She said she wsnted to die like christ to save her children from morning. It was interesting because if you compare sin to morning in guilt for transgression, knowing someone died for you to end it marks a level of respect.

Worship, no. I find that odd. But yeah, many religions did have form of sacrifice. Buddhism doesnt sacrifice flesh for sin. They sacrifice ego. Very different from christianity.

Christians are experiencing the passion because they are re-enacting what happened. However their re-enactment isn't the actual event. Christ isn't getting crucified again. The scene is created so you experience and feel that He is. The experience is real, the re-enactment is illusory.

Gosh. How to explain this.

Catholica know they arent the disciples around christ table. The renactment is saying "christ did it and we do the same in his name." Its literal. We are actually coming together with christ present. Illusionary, no. Youre mixing up daily communion among the body of christ with the "first" supper starting the communion and contiuning. No as christ. Not symbollic. In the name of.

Words are important. They cloak a story with meaning and allegorical significance. That is the most important aspect of the bread and the wine. It helps us understand that community of Faithful believers (the church) and the Covenant.

Not allagory. People are actually communing ans taking part of the lords supper in his name. Its not a reanctment but a continuous communion.

Like my family having dinner with my grandmother present. We know shes not here flssh and blood. But she is here. All family members.

That's a good example, as your grandmother lives in your hearts and is part of the spirit of your family. But is her soul actually present?

Yep. I talk to her and family every morning. Ive seen souls before. Its a regular normal thing in my family. Thats how I understand the eucharisr. If not my family interaction with spirits Id be just like you.

 

[jtartar]

Christian beliefs about salvation centre around why Christ gave His life on the cross and what effect this sacrifice has for those who believe. Because many Christians believe that Christ's sacrifice was necessary for our salvation, they often do not believe or understand the importance of the sacrifice of other Founders of the great religions. This thread provides an opportunity to explore the concept of salvation and consider whether this is unique to Christianity or applicable to other faiths. I have included this in the scripture section to encourage reasoned arguments based on biblical scripture or sacred texts from other religions.

adrian009,
The God who created the heavens and the earth, whose Personal, Proper name is Jehovah, in English, says that there is NO God, but Him, Isaiah 43:10-13, 44:6. Since Jehovah is the only true God, as stated by Jesus Christ, John 17:3, and Jesus is His son, by whom He judges the entire earth, it is only Jehovah that is to be worshipped, for he is a jealous God, Exodus 34:14.
God says that He will destroy all, so-called gods, and all people who worship the, Jeremiah 10:11, 14,15, Psalms 115:1-8, 135:13-18. This God, Jehovah sent His son to earth to give his life for us so that we, who believe in and completely trust in him can gain salvation, Matthew 20:28, John 3:16. This Almighty, Omnescient God had written in His book that there is only ONE way to salvation, through trust in His son, Acts 4:12. Since there is only one way to salvation, belief in Jesus, where does that leave all other people, who worship NON Existent gods???

 

[Dawnofhope]

adrian009,
The God who created the heavens and the earth, whose Personal, Proper name is Jehovah, in English, says that there is NO God, but Him, Isaiah 43:10-13, 44:6. Since Jehovah is the only true God, as stated by Jesus Christ, John 17:3, and Jesus is His son, by whom He judges the entire earth, it is only Jehovah that is to be worshipped, for he is a jealous God, Exodus 34:14.
God says that He will destroy all, so-called gods, and all people who worship the, Jeremiah 10:11, 14,15, Psalms 115:1-8, 135:13-18. This God, Jehovah sent His son to earth to give his life for us so that we, who believe in and completely trust in him can gain salvation, Matthew 20:28, John 3:16. This Almighty, Omnescient God had written in His book that there is only ONE way to salvation, through trust in His son, Acts 4:12. Since there is only one way to salvation, belief in Jesus, where does that leave all other people, who worship NON Existent gods???

I respect your beliefs and agree that there is One God, that Jesus was His Son, and through His Son we can have salvation. I agree that God is Almighty and omniscient.

Here is how I view Jesus being the 'Son of God'.

A Baha'i perspective on Jesus as the 'Son of God'

 

[MJFlores]

Christian beliefs about salvation centre around why Christ gave His life on the cross and what effect this sacrifice has for those who believe. Because many Christians believe that Christ's sacrifice was necessary for our salvation, they often do not believe or understand the importance of the sacrifice of other Founders of the great religions. This thread provides an opportunity to explore the concept of salvation and consider whether this is unique to Christianity or applicable to other faiths. I have included this in the scripture section to encourage reasoned arguments based on biblical scripture or sacred texts from other religions.

I believe there is a passage in the bible for that - which apostle Paul wrote - This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ

Romans 2:12-16 New International Version (NIV)

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

My opinion:
God knows how to judge people. A lot of people have died not knowing Him, however they have consciences - if they have done wrong, it will accuse them and if they have done rightly it will defend them.

I believe even the Mesoamericans like the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas will be judged justly by God.

For Christians, the law is the words of God in the bible - if they don't follow one - they are breaking the whole law.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe there is a passage in the bible for that - which apostle Paul wrote - This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ

Romans 2:12-16 New International Version (NIV)

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
View attachment 16878
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
View attachment 16879
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

My opinion:
God knows how to judge people. A lot of people have died not knowing Him, however they have consciences - if they have done wrong, it will accuse them and if they have done rightly it will defend them.
View attachment 16881
I believe even the Mesoamericans like the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas will be judged justly by God.

For Christians, the law is the words of God in the bible - if they don't follow one - they are breaking the whole law.
View attachment 16880

So salvation for the exclusive group of Christians?

How about Matthew 25:31-46

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

These verses are all about helping those in need. Nothing about having the right belief.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe at their heart they are. The end result is we are freed, or liberated, or saved from suffering and illusion, or sin. All of those are falling short of the mark, and those with a heart to be released from this recognize it in themselves. Hence the many paths to "overcome", each trying this and that, systemizing them within some school of thought or teachings, which are often then packaged in some sort of story or another.

Your post in another thread reminded me of what you had written here and I didn't get around to providing a response. Essentially we see the common threads that run through the different faiths and this is the most important. Why? Because there is a great deal of misunderstanding and divisiveness when it comes to religion and spirituality so if we can cut across the tangle of apparently contradictory and inconsistent beliefs to see the underlying unity, we have made great progress in how we view what will be an increasing challenge for humanity as the twenty first century progresses.

The stories of Jesus for instance are really not about telling historical facts. Those are ultimately irrelevant. Rather the stories are about being a vehicle for the truths within the stories to be held by the mind and acted upon by the heart. This is the nature of mythologies. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer-stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Those that literalize the stories, miss the deeper truth within them, like arguing how perfect this key they found is in its shapes and contours, but fail to understand it's just a tool you use to unlock a door and walk through, then put it away in your pocket to use later on if you need to.

The importance of the stories of Jesus are the spiritual messages they convey, not the literal. What does it matter if a blind man could see, but if through His teachings humanity can have spiritual insight, then much is gained. The significance of the lame man who could walk is that through the Spiritual teachings of Christ we can walk the spiritual path. Jesus rising from the dead, indicates that we can arise from the tomb of disbelief to have everlasting spiritual life.

I'll share an interesting perspective with you to provoke some thought on this. I like to put it this way. We are all already fully enlightened, but we just aren't enlightened to the fact of that yet. There are solid reasons why I say this. The most obvious one is that of "peak experiences". There is a great deal of a lack of understanding of these, but in essence at any given point in someone's life they may have a full enlightenment experience. I have myself had this where all the curtains are pulled back and you see and experience everything just as it is, full of Light, Life, and Love, or Satchitananda - Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

In regards to peak experiences these could be the epiphanies we all have in life as well as the mystical experiences. It is recognising our untapped potential for certain, but also gaining a glimpse into the One, the Eternal.

This is not something you "attain", in the sense that you work yourself up a ladder and that is the end result of your efforts, like big muscles are the result of working out at the gym. You basically go from a skinny little child to a world-class athlete in an instant, in less than a nanosecond. So that sudden shift of one's very being from living in shrouded darkness (comparatively speaking), to fully enlightened mind in a split second, like a lightning strike as is spoken of in Buddhism and represented in the Varja, says that this is not the result of effort, but a prior-condition you are simply accessing. It was already there the whole time. All that is happening is you are ripping back the curtain and exposing it!

I believe we do have points in our lives where we undergo a paradigm shift. This can be through a relatively brief experience to a longer transformation over many years that culminates in a relatively rapid change.

What "degrees" there are which you touch upon, is another arm of this path of Enlightenment or Salvation. Peak experiences are momentary openings of our awareness into that Source of all being within us and the world. But they subsided in a relatively short period of time afterward and we fall back into our regular habits of life and mind. To develop practices, such as a regular meditation practice, is key to training the mind to specifically learn how to in fact let go of all the stuff we hold that blocks us from that Enlightened state we already have. You see where I am going here?

I think we are on the same page. I suppose at some point for me that led to recognising Baha'u'llah as a great spiritual teacher but there are Other Great teachers and the Baha'i faith is certainly the road less travelled.

Though we already are fully within God in the fact of our being, to learn to live in an enlightened state, to live as a "child of God" is in fact a matter of development. We have to grow. We have to learn to integrate this Enlightenment into our daily lives. I love how the Apostle Paul touches on this, even if he didn't expressly understand it in the way I am talking to it,

"And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

~2 Cor. 3:18
You see? So it's not a "salvation of works" in that sense. One does not truly "achieve Enlightenment". Rather, all we doing in our efforts, it to learn how to make no-effort at all, and simply let it Be in us, as it already fully is. It's all much more simple that way, and far less cause for the ego to believe it achieved something great, and thus not being Enlightened at all.

Of course at some stage we need to descend from cloud nine and walk the spiritual path with practical feet. That's what happened to Paul. You may want to consider 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 as another example of Paul's mystical experience of Christ.

Isn't that the $64,000,000 question? The reason really has to do with stages of faith development. I'd recommend if you are interested in reading James Fowler's research in his book Stages of Faith. This basic very high-level chart here gives a quick overview of the stages. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

Those who are at Stage 3 cannot yet do what happens at Stage 4, which is being able to hold the meaning of the symbol apart from the symbol itself. In Stage 3, the meaning and the symbol are fused, and so if someone doesn't have their symbol, let's say Jesus on the cross, then they do not have access to the meaning of it, namely salvation. Therefore, non-Christians are not, and cannot be saved in their minds, because they don't represent and hold Jesus in the same ways they do.

Stage 4 faith can "decouple" the meaning from the symbol and see that same meaning found in other symbols. It's clear to me that both you and I are probably at least at that stage, since we can and do. At any rate, this is some good information I think you may find useful. I enjoy being able to talk about these things at this level, so by all means, let's continue!

I agree that many of us become stuck in thoughts and patterns of behaviour that prevent us from attaining a more profound level of understanding. At some stage we've both managed to free ourselves from such limitations. If it hadn't been for the other thread I probably wouldn't need to say too much about how the Baha'i faith assists with that process for me, rather than hinders it.

I have to say reading your responses to Carlita sound's remarkably like the way I would try to convey this. I find it's often a challenge to talk about how a symbol is not "just a symbol" or "merely a symbol", but are in fact far, far more powerful than the facts the symbolic meaning are attached to. Think of it like this. If someone actually found "God" as an actual person, it would be more like finding a bigfoot. Once you pulled it out of myth a put it in a lab to dissect it, all the power of imagination vanishes. It's no longer a Mystery. Symbols are vehicles for the soul to transcend the limits of the mind.

But the real point for quoting what you said above was to share a quote from the Buddha I think captures this. "To insist on a spiritual practice that served you in the past is to carry the raft on your back after you have crossed the river." The point is the result, not the raft. Symbols are rafts for the soul to cross the river. Once you've crossed over, that symbol has served its purpose. When you meet the next river, you find another raft laying at that shore's edge to help ferry you across to the next shoreline.

I really like the quote from the Buddha and it sums up why I moved from being a Christian to a Baha'i. Let me know if you think there is a better way still. Thanks again for the time you took to post and sorry its taken so long to respond.