Is belief a predicate for salvation?

The thesis that belief is unnecessary for salvation deals with salvation as something extrinsic to the subject. Christian theology has thousands of pages about the "gratuity of grace". The main purpose of this thesis is to stave off Pelagianism (i.e. the notion that salvation is predicated on the subject's efforts, unaided by God). As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle -- it is unimaginable that salvation can be forced upon someone against his will, or that God would force belief upon some subject (and this is relevant to the example of your interaction with your friend). But it is also unimaginable that salvation can be achieved without external assistance -- the very word, "salvation", would become an exaggeration in such a scenario. "Saving oneself" without any external aid is more like "learning something" or "regular development" than like really "saving".

The entire concept of salvation, of course, is predicated on a, let's say, Abrahamic anthropology that views man as at least mildly tainted (on a spectrum that goes all the way to fully damned). If man is intrinsically good, then salvation makes no sense. In that sense, the translation of the concept "salvation" to a Hindu worldview is problematic.

St. Thomas needed proof

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Without establishing a starting point (read: defining "belief" and salvation"), how can you proceed?

I agree.

Reply to Buxtebuddha
There also seem to be two notions of salvation at play. The salvation you're talking about with regards to your friend I suppose isn't a religious form of salvation, is it? I mean you're not a Christian anymore as far as I know, right?

Quoting Mariner

But it is also unimaginable that salvation can be achieved without external assistance -- the very word, "salvation", would become an exaggeration in such a scenario. "Saving oneself" without any external aid is more like "learning something" or "regular development" than like really "saving".

Quoting Mariner

The entire concept of salvation, of course, is predicated on a, let's say, Abrahamic anthropology that views man as at least mildly tainted (on a spectrum that goes all the way to fully damned).

Right, but this idea that salvation does, to some extent, depend on something external can be found in non-Abrahamic traditions too. For example, in Buddhism, one must encounter the Dhamma, at least in one of their past lives, for the possibility of salvation to exist in this life.

I answered 'No', because if a God exists, I have to believe he's not a complete dick, which is what he would be if he condemned someone to eternal damnation because they didn't believe in him, when they had absolutely no control over the inputs of their creation, nor the environment into which they were born.

Quoting Mariner

it is unimaginable that salvation can be forced upon someone against his will, or that God would force belief upon some subject (and this is relevant to the example of your interaction with your friend). But it is also unimaginable that salvation can be achieved without external assistance

I agree.

Quoting Mariner

The entire concept of salvation, of course, is predicated on a, let's say, Abrahamic anthropology that views man as at least mildly tainted (on a spectrum that goes all the way to fully damned). If man is intrinsically good, then salvation makes no sense. In that sense, the translation of the concept "salvation" to a Hindu worldview is problematic.

Could you expand on this?

Quoting John

St. Thomas needed proof

What do you mean?

Quoting tim wood

Without establishing a starting point (read: defining "belief" and salvation"), how can you proceed?

Quoting Agustino

I agree.

I used Christianity and Buddhism as examples with the assumption that readers would understand what religious belief and salvation mean in those contexts.

Quoting Agustino

There also seem to be two notions of salvation at play. The salvation you're talking about with regards to your friend I suppose isn't a religious form of salvation, is it? I mean you're not a Christian anymore as far as I know, right?

No and no. I used my friend as an example just to provide a less theological/philosophical angle on the topic.

Quoting CasKev

I answered 'No', because if a God exists, I have to believe he's not a complete dick, which is what he would be if he condemned someone to eternal damnation because they didn't believe in him, when they had absolutely no control over the inputs of their creation, nor the environment into which they were born.

I'd say that this has become a common, modern sentiment, one that I tend to agree with.

~ Another thought: is believing in the possibility of salvation the same as believing in salvation? I would count myself as someone who certainly entertains salvation (overcoming suffering, one's own sin, etc.) as a possibility, even though I don't adhere to any specific path toward salvation, be it Christian, Buddhist, or another. In light of this, am I believing enough in order to be saved, or must I go out on a limb and put all my eggs in one notion of salvation's basket? After all, believing in one kind of salvation over another doesn't ensure that you're saved! This, I think, is the dilemma I'm getting at. Seems a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation.

Reply to Buxtebuddha

I think of belief as the filter through which we view experience. It's not a great analogy, though. But it illustrates that belief creates reality, and the simplest form of belief is my beliefs about myself. If I believe I'm capable or incapable of doing something, that belief largely dictates whether I do it; self-belief creates self-reality.

From there, my beliefs about others and the world around me largely determine how I interact with that world. But self-belief is still the genesis of my actions in the world; Shame, for instance, which manifests as a belief in my own guilt and my own inability to overcome my guilt, will lead me to create a wall around myself; the self-belief permeates out into others and the world around me, and manifests as closing myself off, or insulting others when my shame is pricked. Now that self-belief creates a change in the world around me. My reality is a structure built of those self-beliefs and world-beliefs, not to mention the permeation of the self-beliefs and world-beliefs of not only those I'm in direct contact with, but those who designed this computer, the theologians who contributed to my perception of theology, Donald Trump, etc.

From there, philosophical, spiritual, or religious belief is, obviously, the most complex and difficult to map, and mostly the furthest from the self. I guess it tends to be interwoven with personal experience, therefore interwoven with self-belief and world-belief. I think the mystics get closest, because, rather than the most abstract form of belief, their spiritual beliefs are directly connected to both practice and experience; they're the ones who "actually mean it". For non-mystics, an ultimately rational analysis of concepts will create the world of philosophical beliefs in which they think and act.

Salvation is a lot harder for me to parse at this point. I get the general Christian sense of it, from being raised with it. I think the popularly accepted, simplest concept is: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but Jesus offers salvation through...yep, belief in him.

So, that view is clearly flawed. A salvation predicated on belief is conditional. But a conditional salvation, given the diffuse, complex web of beliefs which I just described, would essentially be a cruel joke.

So, conditional salvation doesn't make sense. So salvation must be unconditional. The condition of belief can't be a predicate for salvation. If you're drowning in a river, you don't need to believe, or trust, or be confident that I can save you in order for me to actually successfully save you.

All of that being said, I don't find the word salvation to be adequate to describe what all of these concepts are actually pointing to. The web of beliefs (and it is a web, since every individual adds their portion of the web into the entire whole), is too complex and interconnected to say that one correct belief is the predicate for some sort of conditional salvation, from, presumably, damnable sin, which apparently needs to be made in a 70 year lifespan, and is a consequence for "all of eternity". But rather, the web of belief itself is the predicate for the "sins" of humanity; sin is intersubjective between individuals. What's needed isn't personal salvation from one's own sins, but rather a form of salvation that fully acknowledges that no one has complete control of the web of beliefs and sins that forms the entire basis for human life. So an unconditional salvation would stem from that reality.

Act 9

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

Paul gave up eating donuts.

Love is unconditional. A loving parent gives their child what is necessary for their flourishing, without conditions. If God is Love, and Salvation is a flourishing state, she will give it to every one of her children, without imposing conditions.

Quoting Noble Dust

I think the mystics get closest

Who do you admire?

Quoting Noble Dust

Salvation is a lot harder for me to parse at this point. I get the general Christian sense of it, from being raised with it. I think the popularly accepted, simplest concept is: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but Jesus offers salvation through...yep, belief in him.

Indeed, but this framework alone misses out on good works, which are discussed elsewhere in the Bible.

Quoting Noble Dust

So, conditional salvation doesn't make sense. So salvation must be unconditional. The condition of belief can't be a predicate for salvation. If you're drowning in a river, you don't need to believe, or trust, or be confident that I can save you in order for me to actually successfully save you.

Perhaps in this example God is attempting to save us from drowning, but we swipe his hand away. What then? It seems God must let us deny him (belief in him) even though letting us drown also goes against his nature to love.

Quoting Noble Dust

So an unconditional salvation would stem from that reality.

What's this look like, exactly? You might have already described it, and forgive me if you have, but I'm still curious.

Reply to Cavacava Changing the first letter of your name will do that to you, O:)

Quoting andrewk

Love is unconditional. A loving parent gives their child what is necessary for their flourishing, without conditions. If God is Love, and Salvation is a flourishing state, she will give it to every one of her children, without imposing conditions.

So what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives? This cleansing of oneself is an especially prevalent idea in Buddhism, wherein you go through a multitude of different steps on your path toward enlightenment. You don't just live and then die and be saved. This is why it would seem that belief in salvation is at least required, otherwise you are in fact just a fat doughnut eater who will get a pass through the pearly gates like everyone else. If so, then life as a state of suffering becomes an entirely meaningless affair.

Reply to Buxtebuddha

So what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives?

Because most of us care about others. Morality has nothing to do with 'earning salvation' unless one belongs to a handful of particular religions.

Buddhists don’t generally use the term ‘salvation’, although Nirv??a might be understood as equivalent. But a key difference between Buddhism and Christianity is the emphasis on belief in the latter. Actually, ‘orthodoxy’ means ‘right belief’ or ‘right worship’, whereas the first step on the Buddhist ‘eightfold path’ is ‘right view’ or ‘right understanding’. Of course it’s true that in order to take any faith seriously, belief is required, in some sense, but the emphasis on belief that is central to Christianity is not so prevalent. The Buddhist attitude is ‘ehipassiko’, meaning ‘come and see’.

Karen Armstrong, who is a popular commentator on religion (as distinct from a minister of it) makes some interesting points about the role of belief in this OP (which goes back a few years but is still relevant):

Religious truth is...a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives?

(Y) Agree that it would be meaningless if ‘salvation’ was provided unconditionally. It’s been offered freely, according to Christianity, but one has to believe in Jesus Christ, first and foremost, and follow the commandments.

Reply to Buxtebuddha

'Saul' was a noble and kingly name. His switch to 'Paul' was to a diminutive nickname given to a slave. He became a slave to the Messiah, "For when I am weak, then I am strong" (2Cor:12:10)

His strength and his brilliance came from his weakness, slavery to God set him free.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

In a Buddhist (and Hindu) sense, must one step aboard the karmic treadmill in order to achieve enlightenment, or can one munch upon a doughnut on the sidelines and still, somehow, be elevated to a state of having been saved?

Keep in mind that in Indian religion, it is precisely the karmic treadmill, known as samsara, that one endeavors to liberate oneself from. Having any sort of karma, even good karma, is in the end a hindrance to liberation. This is why before the Buddha departed the world, he had burned away all his remaining karma. He didn't die, since death is the result of karmic processes. This is the goal of the Jain ascetics who practice sallekhana as well. I may have misunderstood the meaning of your metaphor here, though.

That being said, there are means to aid one's salvation in Indian religion that operate according to something like grace, and so only require sincere belief. In Hinduism, the various gods and their avatars perform this function. In Buddhism, the celestial bodhisattvas, especially Amitabha, can assist one with their superabundant good karma. All one need do is believe and chant his name. They retain and store this good karma because they have staved off parinirvana and choose to stay in samsara until all sentient beings are liberated.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Even within human interaction, is belief in another's potential to be saved when they themselves do not believe in salvation, enough for them to be saved?

I don't think we have that kind of power.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

In a way I think the Christian God may be similar, in that he believes in his salvation being able to believe in themselves, and as a result, him as well.

Do you mean to say the Christian God believes that humans will be saved? I think it's rather that he desires this. God doesn't have beliefs, but he does have desires, one of which is that all will be saved. Because desiring something doesn't make it so, however, the possibility of hell (that not all will be saved) remains open. This is similar to your desiring the good for your friend. The mere desire alone has no efficacy with respect to her becoming a better person or what have you. That's entirely up to her.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Yet, it would seem that if one does not believe in the Christian God, you won't be saved.

What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means. Within Christianity, I would say this means trusting in who Jesus allegedly is and has done.

Quoting Mariner

If man is intrinsically good, then salvation makes no sense.

But doesn't Abrahamic anthropology affirm that man is intrinsically good? He is corrupted, fallen, but still good, inasmuch as he exists at all, since being and goodness are convertible terms in traditional Christian thought.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Who do you admire?

I'm a noob, I'm just getting into the mystics, but I'm feeling right at home reading Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism". I've read a little Julian of Norwhich, a little Boehme, and a little Eckhart. Oh and some William Blake. Eckhart was the hardest for me to get into, but I have a long way to go. But I was first introduced to them through reading Nikolai Berdyaev. I was introduced to him through Madeline L'Engle, of all people. Actually, my exploration of mysticism has been pretty mystical, in the sense that it's random and not at all academic, and mainly driven by my own intuition.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Indeed, but this framework alone misses out on good works, which are discussed elsewhere in the Bible.

Right, I was just stating that for clarity. Of course, Paul's issue with good works was that "no man should boast"; basically the danger of legalism. But, how do good works obtain within a short 70 year life span, if a world of eternity exists afterwards? What's so important about this incomprehensible life with regards to the supposed after life? That concept, to me, seems like an unessisary antrhopomorphisation.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Perhaps in this example God is attempting to save us from drowning, but we swipe his hand away.

Because it's a suicide attempt, or what?

Quoting Buxtebuddha

It seems God must let us deny him (belief in him) even though letting us drown also goes against his nature to love.

Yeah, I do think there's something there. But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist. So if someone denies God in this life, what makes anyone so certain that the transition to the next life would not a) change that person's attitude towards eternity, or b) signify some sort of arbitrary cutting off point? The idea that it does signify that cutting off point just reeks of humanity's horror and fear towards the unknown of death. There's no actual surety when dealing with the problem of death. Remaining unsure (and thus hopeful) here seems wisest.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

What's this look like, exactly? You might have already described it, and forgive me if you have, but I'm still curious.

I didn't, partially because I was out of brain juice (I'm rusty from not posting here much), and partially because I was at work. I'm pretty exhausted, but I'll give it a shot.

"That reality" refers to the web of interconnected, intersubjective sins that makes up the framework of human life. So an unconditional salvation would be a form of salvation that would operate within this reality, within this web. So the onus is not on the individual to have "right belief" (orthodoxy) within the inextricable web of "wrong belief" (heterodoxy?? heresy?) but rather, there's no "onus", but rather there's an Unconditional Love which is without predicate, and is the Reality which all life is bathed in. Rather than rationally obtaining "right belief", we intuitively experience "Reality", which is Unconditional Love, at various times. Or, we don't. But if we don't, that's often a product of environment (the reality of the web), as much as anything, thus why the onus is not on us. If the Reality of Unconditional Love exists, then no conscious being would fail to eventually arrive there. What the apparatus of arrival is, I have no idea. I recognize that might not help much; I'm sussing the ideas out, which is why I'm posting in your thread, rather than starting my own. :P

Quoting andrewk

Love is unconditional.

How do you predicate that concept sans religion or a spiritual disposition?

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Another thought: is believing in the possibility of salvation the same as believing in salvation?

I would say so.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

In light of this, am I believing enough in order to be saved, or must I go out on a limb and put all my eggs in one notion of salvation's basket?

You might, but I should think you would want to explore all the baskets instead of just arbitrarily halting at the position you currently occupy. You can't advance the likelihood by standing still where you are now, but it may be that you can get closer by putting your eggs in one basket, after having determined to a reasonable degree that you ought to put them there.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

After all, believing in one kind of salvation over another doesn't ensure that you're saved!

True, though again, it does no harm, and may even help ensure one's salvation, to believe in one kind as opposed to another. One thing I will add is that you seem to assume that salvation occurs after death. Not all soteriologies propose that. Buddhism asserts that salvation, attaining nirvana, is possible in this life. So you would want to judge whether you think that's true, because if it is, you have even less reason to stand still. Or, if you choose to accept rebirth, which it would be incumbent on you to do were you to take the Buddhist route, you may believe you will require many more rebirths before reaching awakening. Even so, there are means recommended by Buddhism to shorten that length of time, like meditation, which you could start right now.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

So what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives?

The suggestion here is always, implicitly, that appealing to the more "vulgar" passions would be permissible, because those decisions don't matter within the scope of eternity. My question is: why do they matter within the scope of eternity? Or if eternity doesn't exist, why do they matter within the scope of one's given life span?

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Who do you admire?

I think this should be "whom." I have orders to report such things by the grammar Nazi high command.

Quoting Thorongil

since being and goodness are convertible terms in traditional Christian thought.

Eh?

Quoting Buxtebuddha

So what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives?

Therein lies the rub with universalism.

Reply to Noble Dust Well I think I have a spiritual disposition (although there are some on here who believe I am an unreconstructed reductionist, despite my protests to the contrary), so it's hard for me to comment on what it would be like for someone without one. But I don't see why a non-spiritual person couldn't subscribe to the 'love is unconditional' notion. Isn't it part of the notion of agape that it involves an unconditional concern for the welfare of the other?
Reply to Noble Dust

and a little Eckhart

Tolle, or Meister?

Quoting Thorongil

What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means.

But of course what we think it means would be even more important, since if we get it wrong, we might go to hell...?

Quoting Wayfarer

But a key difference between Buddhism and Christianity is the emphasis on belief in the latter.

Not to sound too sharp, but I think this is a cliche with little basis in fact.

Quoting Wayfarer

The Buddhist attitude is ‘ehipassiko’, meaning ‘come and see’.

Christians have used this expression as well.

Quoting Wayfarer

Karen Armstrong

This may be the problem. I would not recommend reading her at all.

Quoting andrewk

Well I think I have a spiritual disposition

Gotcha, forgive me for assuming. What does a spiritual disposition entail for you?

Quoting andrewk

But I don't see why a non-spiritual person couldn't subscribe to the 'love is unconditional' notion. Isn't it part of the notion of agape that it involves an unconditional concern for the welfare of the other?

Well, it's hard for me to see how the concept of unconditional love has any meaning without a spiritual context. Love without condition, "love, no matter what", in theory, is very romantic. But in practice it is brutal. To love without condition requires an extreme zealousness. I would argue that real unconditional love is nearly non-existent in the world. We see a shadow of it when brave soldiers lay down their lives, and when religious zealots burn at the stake, and when a father lays down his life for his son. We see the shadows of it in those things, but they are exceedingly rare, whereas there are no shortage of both religious and secular foghorns that love to proclaim the virtues of "God is Love", the virtues of "Love is Love is Love", but when put in the trenches, I wonder what those religious zealots, those atheistic zealots would actually be capable of.

The point being: The religious zealot and the atheistic zealot (and who else other than a zealot can declare Unconditional Love?) is often a greenhorn; untested, passionate, but clueless. The real cases of the glimpse of Unconditional Love in the world are rare and costly. How this severity of the cost of Unconditional Love can obtain without a spiritual context is completely lost on me.

Quoting Thorongil

Not to sound too sharp

Only too brief.

Quoting Thorongil

I would not recommend reading her at all.

I’ll let the OP make her own judgement.

Quoting andrewk

Tolle, or Meister?

Meister

Quoting Noble Dust

Eh?

Eh?

Quoting Noble Dust

But of course what we think it means would be even more important, since if we get it wrong, we might go to hell...?

This very much depends on the sort of God you have in mind. The Christian God, whom Buxte has spoken of, is thought to be most fully revealed in the person of Christ, and he doesn't strike me as someone who would damn a person for innocently believing the wrong thing. The Catholic Church, for example, claims that one goes to hell by committing a mortal sin. But to commit a mortal sin, one must possess complete and perfect knowledge of what one is doing. That being the case, one might believe the wrong thing by being deceived, and so be without perfect knowledge that one has sinned, in which case one wouldn't be damned.

Quoting Noble Dust

But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist.

What do you make of Wittgenstein's remark: "if what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with."

Quoting Thorongil

Eh?

Oh, don't be so pedantic. :P

Quoting Thorongil

This very much depends on the sort of God you have in mind. The Christian God, whom Buxte has spoken of, is thought to be most fully revealed in the person of Christ,

That was the God you seemed to have in mind, so that was the sort of God I was referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply to Thorongil

Did he mean eternity when he said "the end", or nothingness? It's an important distinction.

If eternity, then no, all seriousness (assuming that means profound philosophical notions, the gravity of the human condition, etc?) would not be done away with; they would be subsumed and brought to fruition through the outbreak of the finite into the infinite, into eternity, regardless of the actions of individuals. Maybe?

Or, if nothingness, then...well, nothingness.

And what about silliness, by the way?

Reply to Noble Dust

What does a spiritual disposition entail for you?

A fuzzy, shifting melange of Vedanta, Buddhism and pan-psychism. I try to meditate but am hopeless at it. I am better at chanting, which I find quite helpful. I also sing in more than one choir, which I find spiritual in a way that is probably only comprehensible to people that have experienced singing in an enthusiastic choir.

Love without condition, "love, no matter what", in theory, is very romantic.
....
How this severity of the cost of Unconditional Love can obtain without a spiritual context is completely lost on me.

I didn't mean Eros. Erotic love is absolutely rife with conditions. I think the most common manifestation of something approaching unconditional love is that of a parent for a child (not all parents though). And yes, it can be brutal, especially when the child chooses a path that is self-destructive, or becomes hostile to the parent.

Quoting andrewk

I try to meditate but am hopeless at it. I am better at chanting, which I find quite helpful. I also sing in more than one choir, which I find spiritual in a way that is probably only comprehensive to people that have sung in an enthusiastic choir.

I haven't had much success with meditation either, but I want to keep trying. I've had some small successes, actually. Singing in an enthusiastic choir is amazing! I haven't done that in years. I still write and record my own songs that include vocals, and sometimes include layers of harmony. Not the same, and not as meditative as singing with others, but still "spiritual", in my book. Singing in general, I think, is deeply spiritual.

Quoting andrewk

I didn't mean Eros.

Neither did I. I meant romantic in the classical sense; not the erotic sense.

Quoting andrewk

I think the most common manifestation of something approaching unconditional love is that of a parent for a child (not all parents though). And yes, it can be brutal, especially when the child chooses a path that is self-destructive, or becomes hostile to the parent.

Yes, but that's also not what I meant by brutal; I don't mean the brutality of being a parent who watches their child spiral into a terrible life; I mean the brutality of actual self-sacrifice. Which, again, is nearly non-existent in this world. Which again underlines my point.

Quoting Noble Dust

I haven't had much success with meditation

The S?t? Zen attitude is, giving up ideas of succeeding, but continue to practice.

Reply to Wayfarer

I could see that working, but could also see it as turning into one cyclical mind game. Has it worked for you?

Reply to Buxtebuddha

Btw, who of the mystics do you admire?

Reply to Noble Dust The way S?t? teaches is very direct, it does put a lot of emphasis on adopting the posture and sitting in the Zen manner with a minimalist ritual. Then you simply stick with it - you set a time, and a timer, and, as Nike says, ‘just do it’, but with no expectation of anything occurring. If you do stick to it, you learn this ‘no expectation’ aspect is key.

There is a modern Zen koan that I always liked, I can’t find it again now, but it went something like this: new Zen student has first experience of Satori, and with great enthusiasm has Dokusan (interview) with teacher, asking in effect ‘now what?’ To which the answer was something like: ‘apply with broad, even strokes, allowing time to dry between coats.’ (gong sound.)

Quoting Wayfarer

There is a modern Zen koan that I always liked, I can’t find it again now, but it went something like this: new Zen student has first experience of Satori, and with great enthusiasm has Dokusan (interview) with teacher, asking in effect ‘now what?’ To which the answer was something like: ‘apply with broad, even strokes, allowing time to dry between coats.’ (gong sound.)

I assume a teacher is required, or no? I could probably find one in NYC, but I'm not sure I'm committed enough. I'm also horribly undisciplined and philosophically all over the place at this point. But I've been wanting to develop some sort of spiritual practice; right now, reading Underhill's "Mysticism" is providing a good base, if nothing else.

Quoting Thorongil

If man is intrinsically good, then salvation makes no sense.
— Mariner

But doesn't Abrahamic anthropology affirm that man is intrinsically good? He is corrupted, fallen, but still good, inasmuch as he exists at all, since being and goodness are convertible terms in traditional Christian thought.

This is an important question that everyone has to decide how to answer:

Are we collectively good, individually good, or collectively and individually corrupted, fallen, damned, rubbish, etc.?

Even if there is a some evidence to the contrary, there are advantages to thinking that we are good, and worthy of Christ's salvation
[i]To be our Great Healer from death, hell, and sin
Which Adam's transgressions involvéd us in"[/i]
as Billings phrased it.

That we are good, can be good, and will do good things is a more salubrious self-fulfilling prophecy than that we are scum, filth and dirt and cannot, will not do good things.

It is easier to understand and work in concert with others if there is a basic assumption of goodness and redemptive capacity than if the basic assumption is that people will screw you over every chance they get.

We are mercifully not in charge of other people's salvation. For one thing, we don't have access to the database of the damned, saved, and could-go-either-way. Starting with the positive assumption that other people are as good as ourselves (if such a thing is even possible) frees us from a lot of judgmental thinking, which is tiresome to the thinker, and certainly exhausting to everybody else.

Quoting Noble Dust

right now, reading Underhill's "Mysticism" is providing a good base, if nothing else.

I think the dimension of ‘praxis’ is rather missing from the modern conversation on religion. That’s the whole point of the Karen Armstrong OP I linked to. Reading IS practice, to some extent, so well and good. But the point about contemplative practices is that they open you to another aspect which simply can’t be understood through the purely verbal or discursive level.

The reason I left the Christian fold - not that I’m hostile to it, I should add - was because it seemed too ‘pie in the sky’. Like, believe and go to Church, and then receive your ‘heavenly reward’ in the ‘next life’. That was just assumed. When I set out, full of 1960’s enthusiasm, to find Capital T Truth, it wasn’t about ‘pie in the sky’ but in the efficacy of spiritual experience, something you could find out for yourself. IN the time since, it has proven a good deal more elusive than I might have thought at the time, but I’m still basically of the same view.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think the dimension of ‘praxis’ is rather missing from the modern conversation on religion.

I'm not sure if it's missing; "read your bible and pray every day", "practice yoga"...however many times a week millennial women in the West practice yoga. I think the issue is applying oneself to the practice for a specifically mystical purpose (I refrain from saying spiritual because of the connotation of that word now adays). The difference seems to be between a practice in which one is attempting to gain something out of the practice for the sake of one's place in the world (to be a better Christian, a better member of the Church here and now; to be more in tune with one's body and to maintain a healthy body), vs. a spiritual practice that moves only outward; that moves towards the divine, and the divine only. That's what I'm getting from Underhill so far, and it resonates deeply (uncomfortably so), but I have no idea how to apply it yet.

Reply to Noble Dust I never got that kind of instruction from my religious education. Actually when I was a teen and young adult, I didn’t equate the interest I had with the idea of enlightenment as anything to do with ‘religion’ at all. I thought it was a completely different matter. I have changed my views a bit since, but I do often wonder if Buddhism and Christianity are two instances of the same thing, and I have doubts about that.

Have a read of this http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion. It’s not a scholarly article, it’s Hindu polemic but more than a grain of truth.

Reply to Wayfarer

Interesting. Growing up in the 90's in the Midwest of the US, in the church, I was taught to "read my bible and pray every day". And I did, actually. As a child growing into adulthood, though, those practices became toxic, not helpful. And not because of the nature of those practices themselves, but because of how I interfaced with them. It's hard to go back now, given the backstory.

Quoting Wayfarer

I do often wonder if Buddhism and Christianity are two instances of the same thing, and I have doubts about that.

I wonder that about religions in general as well.

Reply to Noble Dust One idea I have come to is about the malign consequences of Western religious orthodoxy. It’s not that the principles they’re based on are bad - I am still Christian in some fundamental ways. But the emphasis on ‘right belief’ v ‘heresy’ and on ‘saved’ vs ‘damned’ has forced Western culture into this deep dichotomy - with or against. I really think that came to a head with Calvin.

So, my view is that there is a shadow cast by the vehemence of religious conflict in European history. The religious wars and the Inquisition. The Enlightenment was born out of ‘anything but that’ - you see it here every day. American Protestantism, on the other side, was born out of wiping the slate clean and practicing anew as Christ would have taught (albeit having abandoned the Western mystical tradition to their detriment, in my view).

But in any case, the reaction against religion - ‘theism’, as it is disparagingly called on the Internet - walls off certain ideas, certain ways-of-being, often without consciously understanding why it has done it. That underwrites a lot of the discussion about religion in my view.

Quoting Wayfarer

But the emphasis on ‘right belief’ v ‘heresy’ and on ‘saved’ vs ‘damned’ has forced Western culture into this deep dichotomy - with or against. I really think that came to a head with Calvin.

Absolutely; I agree, and I'm pretty sure I've argued that here more than once.

Quoting Wayfarer

The Enlightenment was born out of ‘anything but that’ - you see it here every day.

Yeah, I guess so. But I don't know if that's unique; I wonder if anywhere else in history, a similar attitude was assumed, and an important historical movement was then made.

Quoting Wayfarer

American Protestantism, on the other side, was born out of wiping the slate clean and practicing anew as Christ would have taught (albeit having abandoned the Western mystical tradition to their detriment, in my view).

Well, yes, they thought they were doing that, American protestants. But, from the start, revivalism was coached in the language of "sinners in the hands of an angry god", was it not? But ironically, now in 2017, American protestantism is anything but hell and brimstone; (or, only in it's most extreme fundamental states). American protestantism in the US is largely pretty lukewarm.

Quoting Agustino

Right, but this idea that salvation does, to some extent, depend on something external can be found in non-Abrahamic traditions too. For example, in Buddhism, one must encounter the Dhamma, at least in one of their past lives, for the possibility of salvation to exist in this life.

The difference is that in one case (Christian grace) it is a gift from an agent (God) to the subject; in the other case, it is a precondition that is not offered by an agent. In Buddhism (as far as I know) there is no mind guiding or attracting people towards 'salvation' -- it is a result of personal effort + necessary preconditions. Therefore, it is quite unlike Christian grace in that it does not require external conscious help by an agent.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Could you expand on this?

The Hindu worldview (and others, e.g. Taoism) is predicated on the thesis that moral judgments are not ontologically relevant. Damnation/Salvation involves the application of moral categories upon ontology; in the Christian milieu, the worldview is represented by the notion that Lucifer's fall and Adam's error tainted the entirety of created being (as St. Paul said, the entirety of creation is aching for salvation).

All of this is related to the notion that God is good and that his creation was very good (before the fall, and therefore it is still potentially very good even now), and that this goodness of creation is true precisely because it was created by the God who is good. God is the source of all goodness, and he bequeaths his goodness upon his creation. This worldview is very different from the Hindu worldview, which involves an eternal nature (which is not properly called "creation" in the Christian sense), cycles of being, etc.

Quoting Mariner

The difference is that in one case (Christian grace) it is a gift from an agent (God) to the subject; in the other case, it is a precondition that is not offered by an agent. In Buddhism (as far as I know) there is no mind guiding or attracting people towards 'salvation' -- it is a result of personal effort + necessary preconditions. Therefore, it is quite unlike Christian grace in that it does not require external conscious help by an agent.

In the oldest sects of Theravada, it is absolutely required to have met a buddha in at least some past life for enlightenment to be possible - or otherwise to encounter the Dhamma externally by yourself, a direct revelation. Buddha-mind/nature, Nirvana and the Dhamma are eternal and not subject to change, much like the Christian Trinity. But when in a state of deep ignorance, you can only encounter the Buddha-mind, and therefore the Dhamma externally. That's why some sects of Buddhism venerate the statue of Buddha.

Quoting Agustino

In the oldest sects of Theravada, it is absolutely required to have met a buddha in at least some past life for enlightenment to be possible - or otherwise to encounter the Dhamma externally by yourself, a direct revelation.

And is this scenario more akin to "attracting agent" or to "necessary precondition"? That's the core of the difference.

Compare the gospel sentence -- "When I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people toward me" -- with the Buddhist mindset and the difference is clear. The agent in Christ's sentence is Christ.

Quoting Mariner

And is this scenario more akin to "attracting agent" or to "necessary precondition"? That's the core of the difference.

Granted that Buddha-nature is personal, I think it's very much an attracting agent.

Quoting Mariner

Compare the gospel sentence -- "When I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people toward me" -- with the Buddhist mindset and the difference is clear. The agent in Christ's sentence is Christ.

Well, I obviously agree that there is a difference in emphasis between the two of them, but that isn't to say that they're different substantially on this point.

The same emphasis found in Christianity, isn't found in Judaism for example, but that's not to say that Judaism lacks them completely.

Quoting Cavacava

His strength and his brilliance came from his weakness, slavery to God set him free.

You appear to be suggesting that slavery is good if one is a slave to the right person or thing. Strange, as I remember you being on the "tear down any 'Confederate' statue" boat because they represented slavery, presumably.

Quoting Thorongil

Keep in mind that in Indian religion, it is precisely the karmic treadmill, known as samsara, that one endeavors to liberate oneself from.

I'd liken this treadmill to Christian purgatory. My point being that one does not presumably go directly from living a life to being saved or attaining enlightenment. Even the "faith alone" Protestant Christians don't know for certain that they will be saved. No Christian does. This is why I brought up the distinction between believing in the possibility of salvation and believing in salvation explicitly. Either way, salvation isn't guaranteed, even when a religious tells you that you have to belief. One must first believe in order to unlock the possibility of salvation, which is, to me, a dreadfully backwards notion.

Quoting Thorongil

I don't think we have that kind of power.

I agree.

Quoting Thorongil

Do you mean to say the Christian God believes that humans will be saved? I think it's rather that he desires this.

I think if he didn't have confidence that we'd believe in him he'd have never sent Jesus Christ.

Quoting Thorongil

What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means.

Too bad we can't know that.

Quoting Thorongil

You might, but I should think you would want to explore all the baskets instead of just arbitrarily halting at the position you currently occupy. You can't advance the likelihood by standing still where you are now, but it may be that you can get closer by putting your eggs in one basket, after having determined to a reasonable degree that you ought to put them there.

This means that you think belief is required for salvation, and that one must choose one sort of salvation over another, ya?

Quoting Noble Dust

I'm a noob, I'm just getting into the mystics, but I'm feeling right at home reading Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism". I've read a little Julian of Norwhich, a little Boehme, and a little Eckhart. Oh and some William Blake. Eckhart was the hardest for me to get into, but I have a long way to go. But I was first introduced to them through reading Nikolai Berdyaev. I was introduced to him through Madeline L'Engle, of all people. Actually, my exploration of mysticism has been pretty mystical, in the sense that it's random and not at all academic, and mainly driven by my own intuition.

I've tended to stick with Eckhart, Tauler, and Suso. That little circle of mystics got it right, in my opinion.

Quoting Noble Dust

Right, I was just stating that for clarity. Of course, Paul's issue with good works was that "no man should boast"; basically the danger of legalism. But, how do good works obtain within a short 70 year life span, if a world of eternity exists afterwards? What's so important about this incomprehensible life with regards to the supposed after life? That concept, to me, seems like an unessisary antrhopomorphisation.

I think the logic goes that doing good is to grow closer to God, as God is Goodness. I just wonder when we actually arrive to be in God, as it were, and we cease getting closer and closer and closer. Was it Xeno who discussed this paradox where you can't actually get to ten if you start with 1 and then half every number afterward? If salvation or heaven or whatever is "ten", then we can't ever get there.

Quoting Noble Dust

Because it's a suicide attempt, or what?

What do you mean?

Quoting Noble Dust

Yeah, I do think there's something there. But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist. So if someone denies God in this life, what makes anyone so certain that the transition to the next life would not a) change that person's attitude towards eternity, or b) signify some sort of arbitrary cutting off point? The idea that it does signify that cutting off point just reeks of humanity's horror and fear towards the unknown of death. There's no actual surety when dealing with the problem of death. Remaining unsure (and thus hopeful) here seems wisest.

I'm not sure if every Christian thinker posits that hell is actually eternal for each soul, only that hell itself is an eternal state, or lack thereof, for those to arrive in.

Quoting Noble Dust

there's an Unconditional Love which is without predicate, and is the Reality which all life is bathed in.

I think unconditional love without predicate would be God himself. But how that relates to us is the question, whether the love in us is conditional or predicated - I think it is, sin being the crux.

Quoting Noble Dust

The suggestion here is always, implicitly, that appealing to the more "vulgar" passions would be permissible, because those decisions don't matter within the scope of eternity. My question is: why do they matter within the scope of eternity? Or if eternity doesn't exist, why do they matter within the scope of one's given life span?

Again, it seems that doing good on earth is intended to get us closer to God, or salvation, but my wrestling now has to do with whether we can ever shed this seemingly futile clambering toward God and just arrive. In other words, get back to being in God. To attach ourselves once again to God's love without our sin dragging us away. If you've read Eckhart, you'll be familiar then with most translations describing this attachment to God as being a kind of sinking into him. That is, we're sinking back into the primordial waters that is God's creative love.

Quoting Wayfarer

I’ll let the OP make her own judgement.

Ah, good that you caught onto this. I was just musing with a friend of mine last night that I've decided to become a woman. Thank you for the pronoun respect, Wayflower, :P (Y)

Reply to Buxtebuddha :-* Sorry, I hope that I wasn’t wrong, and that you’re not being ironic. In either case, apologies if any are called for.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

If you've read Eckhart, you'll be familiar then with most translations describing this attachment to God as being a kind of sinking into him. That is, we're sinking back into the primordial waters that is God's creative love.

There’s a Franciscan monk, Father Richard Rohr, who is a popular speaker and author on these topics. The book I have of his on the subject is called ‘Falling Upwards’, and it’s very much about this kind of idea.

Reply to Buxtebuddha

You appear to be suggesting that slavery is good if one is a slave to the right person or thing. Strange, as I remember you being on the "tear down any 'Confederate' statue" boat because they represented slavery, presumably.

Paul is expressing slavery to Christ as a way of being in Christ, not by shackles, whips, or physical force but in a free act of the will. Your OP asked if belief was necessary for salvation. The Bible's description of what happened to Paul on his way to Damascus suggests that the Lord can choose his own instruments.

The Lord replied to Paul (2 Cor 12:9)
"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness"

This is what I find fascinating about Paul, this conception of infinite power in powerlessness.

Physical, forced labor as part of an economic system built on a slave class is immoral. Being a willing slave to one's conception of God is very different kind of slavery. There are few slaves that choose to become or remain slaves, unlike Paul who freely made this choice. It is a radical move for one who previously persecuted Christians.

Quoting Wayfarer

Sorry, I hope that I wasn’t wrong, and that you’re not being ironic. In either case, apologies if any are called for.

I was jokin' with you, X-)

Quoting Wayfarer

There’s a Franciscan monk, Father Richard Rohr, who is a popular speaker and author on these topics. The book I have of his on the subject is called ‘Falling Upwards’, and it’s very much about this kind of idea.

I'll look him up, thanks.

Quoting Mariner

The difference is that in one case (Christian grace) it is a gift from an agent (God) to the subject; in the other case, it is a precondition that is not offered by an agent. In Buddhism (as far as I know) there is no mind guiding or attracting people towards 'salvation' -- it is a result of personal effort + necessary preconditions. Therefore, it is quite unlike Christian grace in that it does not require external conscious help by an agent.

Also on this point, there is a conflation between salvation on the Christian worldview which is given by grace and salvation on the Buddhist worldview which is actually what Christians know as theosis or deification (which is not given by grace).

I guess Buddhists would take the equivalent of Christian salvation to be encountering the Dhamma or Buddha-nature.

Regardless, I feel that the most significant & incompatible difference between Christianity and Buddhism lies on the topic of reincarnation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

If you're arguing that Christians and Buddhists - the respective faithfuls - both understand and mean the same things when they hear about or talk about belief and salvation within their faiths, I can assure you that is not the case.

I've never argued that. Read my posts again.

Quoting tim wood

If you mean that somewhere within the main texts of either of these faiths there is a clear and complete explanation of what belief and salvation are, that also is simply not the case.

Oh really? How about you support that claim.

Quoting tim wood

That alone make most discussions of particular beliefs or salvation an exercise in nonsense. The invitation to define is simply an invitation to ground the discussion somewhere.

Why are you even here, then? I think the thread has done some good, seeing as it is now four pages in.

I don't see any reason to suppose that a person's self-reported beliefs when narrowly considered as a form of verbal-behaviour are qualitatively different from, or prior to, any other form of behaviour that is correlated to their holding of those beliefs. The cognitive therapist's working principle that the verbal behaviours of a patient represent the causal origin or explanans of the subject's broader behaviours seems sorely misguided to me.

Self-reported beliefs more often than not, chase the environmentally reinforced behaviours associated with them along with the psychological needs of the individual, while the self-reported spiritual salvation of the manic-depressive can instantaneously change to existential despair with only the passing of a cloud over the sun.

What counts as a belief? If one believes in a single, omnipotent god but calls them by a different name, does he believe in the God? What if one believes in a god that he calls God (and with every title used by christians), the description of whom fully matches the christians' God, but they claim they do not believe in the christian God?

I do have other, less nit-picky thoughts to contribute as well (although I do believe the former question to be both relevant and interesting topic for discussion - not that it wouldn't be kind of nit-picky however). The Bible doesn't say that belief in God or Jesus is what brings the salvation, and that is all invented by theologians. However, as Luther said, it's not the good deeds that bring it either. Instead I believe the true path to salvation to be belief in Jesus' words, regardless of whether one has ever heard them or believes to agree with them. Jesus thought love and kindness, and being a loving and kind person is what saves a person through God's mercy.

Quoting Noble Dust

But of course what we think it means would be even more important, since if we get it wrong, we might go to hell...?

Yes, but that would mean you chose to go to Hell. Hell isn't a physical place but rather a state of being (at least according to some), the state of mind of being away from God's love. If you understand the God's word in some way, and decide you agree with the morals that interpretation implies, and then God's will is actually something that contradicts those believes, it would mean you wouldn't choose those views.

Let's hypothetically think that violent extremist fundamentalists were right. That would mean that God would want you to kill heretics, raped women would be responsible for getting raped and would be sinners, being gay would be a sin, etc. You wouldn't want the love of a being like that. Then you would go to Hell, which would mean being a loving, happy person.

Quoting Agustino

Regardless, I feel that the most significant & incompatible difference between Christianity and Buddhism lies on the topic of reincarnation.

Does christianity really contradict reincarnation though? If reincarnation is thought of as a phenomenon involving the metaphysics of mind and taken apart from religious supernaturalism, there's no contradiction in my opinion. (Most) christians do already accept the reincarnation of the body anyway, in the form of the atoms of the body becoming ground and then parts of other living organisms, involving humans.

Reply to BlueBanana Oh come on! Rotting in the ground and becoming skunk cabbage isn't reincarnation -- its recycling.

Reincarnation would seem to be precluded by the Christian belief in the resurrection of the specific body which once was a man, as stated in the creeds, "I believe in the resurrection of the body". Within Christian theology, we are born once, live, and die -- and will be raised from the dead at some future time. Let's not get into how a dead body recycled a hundred times over is going to be raised from the dead -- that would be God's problem, not ours.

Supposing that Christianity countenances reincarnation is like saying Buddhism countenances the single resurrection of the body. As far as I know, it doesn't.

Religions arise in various cultures to answer ultimate questions, but that doesn't mean that they end up overlapping all over the place. A Jew, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, and a Christian each have a unique take on life and death, and whatever--if anything--happens after death.

Some not-very-well-informed Christians would like to import reincarnation, I think -- beats me why they would want to do that. Personally, I think once is enough.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Oh come on! Rotting in the ground and becoming skunk cabbage isn't reincarnation -- its recycling.

Well that's just the matter of deining the terms. Buddhists believe that the parts of the soul become new souls after death, not that a specific person's soul is reincarnated in a new body and it's the exact same personality and soul. That process is very similar to what is scientifically proven to happen with physical bodies.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Reincarnation would seem to be precluded by the Christian belief in the resurrection of the specific body which once was a man, as stated in the creeds, "I believe in the resurrection of the body". Within Christian theology, we are born once, live, and die -- and will be raised from the dead at some future time.

I don't say that's incorrect, but they do also believe in the results of scientific research. By saying that christians believe in the reincarnation of the body, I was referring to that, not the resurrection of the final judgement day. Similarly while they do believe that (obviously) the soul/mind is resurrected with the body (although I guess some believe in a zombie version of apocalypse), it's not told by the dogma of the church what happens inbetween. The substance of which the soul consists could be "recycled", and like how you referred to the reincarnation of the body as recycling, not even aknowledging it as reincarnation, christians wouldn't see the reincarnation of soul being reincarnation or a religion-related thing, just referring to it as, for exampe, recycling.

Quoting Agustino

I feel that the most significant & incompatible difference between Christianity and Buddhism lies on the topic of reincarnation.

One of the reasons I couldn't accept the articles in the Nicene Creed was the doctrine of the 'resurrection of the body'. There seemed to be a belief that at some point in the distant future, all of those who had once lived would then be 'resurrected' - their bodies would be restored and they would live again. At the time I was a child, so I didn't ask about the details, and they weren't ever explained to me, but that seemed to be the gist, and I found it impossible to believe (along with the second coming).

In the time since, I have wondered about Christian views of eschatology (what happens to the soul after death). There was a 'doctrine of limbo' which was supposed to account for what happens to un-baptised infants, but I understand that it has been deprecated. But I find the whole picture of what 'the afterlife' means, especially for the billions of people outside the fold of orthodoxy, impossible to grasp.

Whereas, the understanding of the 'round of birth and death' seems naturalistic. Every individual birth is one in a sequence of the development of consciousness. What is done in this life, creates causes that then come to fruition in other lives. Actually, in the early Buddhist texts, very little detail of the processes is given; it is baldly stated that beings will be re-born in one of the six realms in the next life on account of their actions. But liberation from the round of birth-and-death is just that - liberation from it, not being reborn in heaven; heavenly realms exist, inhabited by celestial beings, but they are not eternal, as nothing is. This is represented by the depiction of the Buddha as being outside the circle of birth and death in depictions of the Wheel of Becoming.

Quoting Mariner

In Buddhism (as far as I know) there is no mind guiding or attracting people towards 'salvation' -- it is a result of personal effort + necessary preconditions.

Pure Land Buddhism, which is hugely popular in East Asia, is very similar to Christianity in that respect. It is founded on faith in the Buddha Amitabha - 'amita' meaning 'immeasurable' - who is a celestial being who has pledged to save all beings who have faith in him and repeat his name. It has hard to convey the feeling of what these religions are like in a Forum post but they are very similar to Christianity in their emphasis on faith. I suppose they're a 'devotional' form of Buddhism, as distinct from the rather more 'gnostic' forms that are commonly encountered through Tibetan and Zen. But I've also found that grace is fundamental to Buddhism (surprisingly, perhaps.)

Quoting BlueBanana

Does Christianity really contradict reincarnation though?

In the early Christian era, there were beliefs in 'metempsychosis' which is an old Greek term equivalent to re-incarnation; Pythagoreans definitely believed in it. It is suggested that the Church Fathers, Origen, subscribed to such a belief, although his language about it is highly ambiguous. In any case, in one of the early Church councils, belief in the 'pre-existence of souls', which is the belief that the soul exists before it becomes attached to a body, was declared 'anathema', i.e. formally declared a heresy or unacceptable belief. Since then, none of the Roman or Greek-speaking Churches accept any form of reincarnation. The only place it is found in the Christian world is in heretical Gnostic sects, such as the Cathars, who were fiercely persecuted by the Catholic Church in medieval times.

Quoting Wayfarer

In the early Christian era, there were beliefs in 'metempsychosis' which is an old Greek term equivalent to re-incarnation.

Not amongst Christians though - at least the vast majority.

Quoting Wayfarer

... so I didn't ask about the details, and they weren't ever explained to me

That's because there are no details.

I would have to reread the Gospels again (and try to do so in a "de novo" frame of mind), but it doesn't seem to me that the resurrection of bodies was upper-most in Jesus' preaching. It doesn't seem to me that life ever-lasting was either. Which makes sense, because (again recollecting) it doesn't seem to me that the Jewish tradition on which Jesus stood was all that concerned with those issues either.

My own belief is that one could fully satisfy the demands of the last judgement (as described in Matthew 25:31-46) without expecting to exist after death, and without expecting one's body to be raised from the dead. Of course, if one was to be present at the last judgement, one would have to still be alive, sort of, but... well... be that as it may... mumble, mumble, now on to the next item in the syllabus.

Quoting Bitter Crank

It doesn't seem to me that life ever-lasting was either.

I think Life, capital L, or Eternal Life, is the central teaching of the Gospel - Life being 'entering the Kingdom', which is radically transfigured state of being whereby all fear of death and sense of ego-centred existence has been extinguished. Nowadays this is weakly preserved as 'belief in Heaven' but I think if one actually encountered the living Jesus, he would set you straight in no uncertain terms.

Actually that leads well to an article on Maverick Philosopher's blog Joshua Royce and the Paradox of Revelation. Royce was an American philosopher in the 'Golden Age' of American philosophy (other notables including Peirce and James). Comments are by the blog author (Bill Vallicella). It is directly concerned with the theme of the OP so I will quote it at length:

There are tough questions about the possibility and the actuality of divine revelation. An examination of some ideas of the neglected philosopher Josiah Royce (1855-1916) from the Golden Age of American philosophy will help us clarify some of the issues and problems. One such problem is this: How can one know in a given case that ...divine revelation is genuine?

1. Concern for Salvation as Essential to Religion. It is very difficult to define religion, in the sense of setting forth necessary and sufficient conditions for the correct application of the term, but I agree with Royce's view that an essential characteristic of anything worth calling religion is a concern for the salvation of man. Religious objects are those that help show the way to salvation. The central postulate of religion is that "man needs to be saved." Saved from what? ". . . from some vast and universal burden, of imperfection, of unreasonableness, of evil, of misery, of fate, of unworthiness, or of sin." In an earlier post on Simone Weil I spoke of generic wretchedness [the equivalent of the Buddhist 'dukkha']. It is that which we need salvation from.

2. The Need for Salvation. "Man is an infinitely needy creature." But the need for salvation, for those who feel it, is paramount among human needs. The need for salvation depends on two simpler ideas:

a) There is a paramount end or aim of human life relative to which other aims are vain.

b) Man as he now is, or naturally is, is in danger of missing his highest aim, his highest good.

To hold that man needs salvation is to hold both of (a) and (b). I would put it like this. The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa (path of sorrows) through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. It is not, for them, what William James in "The Will to Believe" calls a "living option," let alone a "forced" or "momentous" one.

3. Religious Insight. Royce defines religious insight as ". . . insight into the need and into the way of salvation." No one can take religion seriously who has not felt the need for salvation. But we need religious insight to show that we really need it, and to show the way to it.

4. Royce's Question. He asks: What are the sources of religious insight? What are the sources of insight into the need and into the way of salvation? Many will point to divine revelation through a scripture or through a church as the principal source of religious insight. But at this juncture Royce discerns a paradox that he calls the religious paradox, or the paradox of revelation.

It's (4) which is most relevant to the OP but I think this is a useful clarification of the whole question.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Too bad we can't know that.

But we can gain some intimation of that by looking at God's purported revelation.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

This means that you think belief is required for salvation, and that one must choose one sort of salvation over another, ya?

I still don't know exactly what you're packing into the word "belief." Perhaps your concern is that if salvation is possible or a future reality for one, then it makes little difference in terms of attaining it whether one believes in the possibility of salvation or not or whether one believes in one specific formulation of salvation than another. My reply would be that there are presumably reasons for believing that salvation is possible, such that one needn't just believe in its possibility credulously. I happen to think there are. I would also reply by saying that perhaps there are reasons for salvation in some sense depending on what we believe and what we do in this life. In other words, universalism with respect to salvation may be false.

Quoting Noble Dust

If eternity, then no, all seriousness (assuming that means profound philosophical notions, the gravity of the human condition, etc?) would not be done away with; they would be subsumed and brought to fruition through the outbreak of the finite into the infinite, into eternity, regardless of the actions of individuals. Maybe?

I think "seriousness" could refer to what we believe and how we act. If these have no transcendent significance, as it were, then there is no reason not to commit suicide.

Quoting Noble Dust

And what about silliness, by the way?

Pardon?

Christianity like many things is best understood in hindsight. When you have the answers and know the truth, the Bible makes complete sense. Because much of scripture has been misunderstood you won’t make the right conclusions based on what you learn at Sunday School.

To answer your question, you have to know what to believe and what you are being saved from.

Quoting Steve

When you have the answers and know the truth, the Bible makes complete sense.

Can one ever have the answers or know the truth, though?

Quoting Steve

Because much of scripture has been misunderstood you won’t make the right conclusions based on what you learn at Sunday School.

How might I make the right conclusions, then?

Quoting Steve

To answer your question, you have to know what to believe and what you are being saved from.

I think Christianity provides a pretty straightforward framework for know what to believe and knowing what salvation entails. Do you disagree? If so, why?

It’s not as straightforward as one might expect. There are things that are presumed when you read the Bible that are not correct. Often they are poorly explained away. First of all, Elohim isn’t synonymous with Yahweh. It actually means gods, plural. This is why is says let us make man in our image. Secondly, the knowledge of good and evil causes guilt. Guilt is what separates us from Almighty God. That’s why sacrifices were started. It was the belief that making the offering washed their sins away. This dismissed guilt and restored connection with the Heavenly Father. Belief that Christ is Devine and His sacrifice is enough to wash every sin away means you never have to feel guilty. The connection is never interrupted. From there He can teach you and guide you. You have to follow and belong to Him. He has the power to create and recreate, when the New Age comes we will receive a piece of the land, in His Kingdom. If you are not His your soul will have no vessel and will not be able to experience life just eternal nothingness.

Quoting Steve

Belief that Christ is Devine and His sacrifice is enough to wash every sin away means you never have to feel guilty.

But why would salvation be predicated on belief?

I seem to be the only one who voted for "Can't know", which would be the closest to my stance as a nonreligious atheist, and, playing devil's advocate, as someone with views similar to an agnostic theist and a deist.

Basically, I wouldn't take scripture to be a gateway to knowledge about that which only God could know. It would be a mystery. I would reject Biblical literalism as a basis for any metaphysics or knowledge about the world or indeed God, and, if I was a follower of a religion, I would adhere to what I interpreted as allegorical content.

Quoting Noble Dust

But why would salvation be predicated on belief?

Blood always atoned for sin. Belief that Christ was Divine makes Him such a sacred offering that it is enough to cover every sin of every person. If you believe He was just a teacher and His blood was no holier than anyone else then the blood atones nothing, we have no offering and are still with our sins.

Once you are reconciled, you have restored communication with Almighty God. From there you accept Christ as Lord and live as He commanded; put others ahead of yourself, love and share the Good News with others. Once you are reconciled and truly want to follow Christ then you notice a connection to the Holy Spirit. In silence and prayer and fasting the connection increases.

The other reasons I know guilt plays a big part in connectivity is because we are told to forgive others freely, to appease their guilt. Also when questioned about following guidelines, Paul said do what your conscience allows. If someone feels guilty doing something then to them it’s sin. There is no law for them in Christ. It’s not about rules and the ability to follow them. Christianity is about connecting spiritually to Almighty God. We become part of His Body.

Reply to Steve

I'm familiar with all of that, but I'm asking why belief is the predicate of salvation.

Quoting Noble Dust

I'm familiar with all of that, but I'm asking why belief is the predicate of salvation.

Use a word other than predicate.

Reply to Steve

Based on; dependent on.

Humans don’t follow their designed program. If they did we would live in paradise. If you don’t believe that Christ is Divine and that He will return at the end of this age to claim His throne, why would you care what He said. It’s the fact that you believe He is Lord, so you obey Him as Lord. When you belong to Him you see clearly.

Do you understand the metaphysical. Everything is energy and frequency. If you do not believe that the Holy Spirit can link with you, even to use you as a catalyst during faith healings and miracles, then the link is not possible. It’s like you are a computer just plugged into the wall. Although there is a lot you can do that’s not all you were created for. When you connect to the internet, all of a sudden you are linked to nearly endless possibilities. Faith is like the wifi/modem password that grants you access. When this happens the Spirit updates your operating system and you become a new creation.

Dare I point out, this is a philosophy forum, not a place for evangelisation of the Gospel. One is free to argue for or against religion, but evangelisation is not a philosophical argument, it’s a statement of creed.

Reply to Wayfarer

(Y)

Quoting Wayfarer

Dare I point out, this is a philosophy forum, not a place for evangelisation of the Gospel. One is free to argue for or against religion, but evangelisation is not a philosophical argument, it’s a statement of creed.

The original question was inquiring why faith was required by Christians for salvation. Why allow the question if those who answer it are railroaded into being banned. That was obviously the intent of Noble Dust. Nice