If you've been hypothetically marooned somewhere in the Solipsistic Archipelago with a fundamental Christian sect, you will benefit greatly from being saved, either by outside agents or accepting Jesus as your representative savior.

Excuse the "in sin"-cerity.

If you've been hypothetically marooned somewhere in the Solipsistic Archipelago with a fundamental Christian sect, you will benefit greatly from being saved, either by outside agents or accepting Jesus as your representative savior.

Excuse the "in sin"-cerity. — Nils Loc

Oh butterfingers. So, I must accept Christ then.

*Christ I accept you and yearn for your return*.

Christians believe in Christ's salvation of a world fallen into sin by the disobedience of Adam and Eve. St. Augustine explicated the theory. If you want to hear a very nice explanation of all this, attend an Episcopal Church service of Nine Lessons and Carols which are generally scheduled between the first week of December and a little before Christmas (during Advent, in other words). Scripture is read interspersed with very nice Advent and Christmas music, hopefully with a nice English high church flavor. It's just listening and singing -- no Eucharist.

I don't believe I have done anything wrong — Posty McPostface

Really? A rather lengthy cross-examination (so to speak) would be required to determine whether you were lying or not. Jesus and Santa Claus both know whether you have been bad or good, but Santa is concerned only with the previous year, and Santa's standards are not extraordinarily high. But as it happens, it doesn't matter whether you've done anything wrong or not. By being born human, you partake in Adam's sin and there is nothing you, or anybody else, can do about it.

So, we all need to be saved according to this theory, and nobody is so nice that they are exempt.

Most Christians think you have to be baptized, and most Christians think you should at least be favorably disposed toward Jesus in order to be saved. Evangelicals will insist that you proclaim that you have accepted Jesus as your personal savior. Mainline Christians put quite a bit of emphasis on God's wish to be reconciled with the world, and God's open-handed welcome. The Baptists will send you to hell if you haven't taken JC as your PS.

This all assumes that God exists, that God agrees with mainline and evangelical theology, and that God takes orders from down here, rather than the other way around.

I hope for your sake that you were baptized and confessed your manifold sins and wickednesses before you took communion at mass. If you didn't, you would be in very big trouble with very conservative Catholics who might want to burn you at the stake for sacrilege.

The Unitarian Universalist Church (which comes out of the New England Transcendental tradition) holds that there is no trinity and that everyone gets saved.

I don't believe I have done anything wrong; but, there's a man telling me I have committed sin and need to be saved. — Posty McPostface

There's a couple of alternative etymologies for the word 'sin'. One is that it is connected to Old English synn "moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense against God, misdeed. But going further back, it was originally derived from a term meaning 'to miss the mark':

The original sense of New Testament Greek ἁμαρτία hamartia "sin", is failure, being in error, missing the mark, especially in spear throwing;[3] Hebrew hata "sin" originates in archery and literally refers to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[4] "To sin" has been defined from a Greek concordance as "to miss the mark".[5]

To see how that fits in with religious philosophies, generally, there's a blog post on Maverick Philosopher's site about Josiah Royce (one of the American Idealists, back when they existed). According to Vallicella's presentation:

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 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.

So in this interpretation, 'sin' is 'missing the mark', or not realising the opportunity that life presents for the supposed 'higher life'. Religions purport to provide the means to realise that 'paramount aim or end of human life', which, however, one has to respond to, in order to avail oneself of it - and as the passage notes, 'some people don't'.

The idea that "human beings" are a fallen species has a lot to recommend it. It accounts for a lot of bad things that happen.

I'm a failed believer (I stopped believing) but the good thing about God's relationship with creation is that God apparently wishes to be reconciled to this world. Man and God are naturally separate; we can hardly help it. The all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent loving God could not be more unlike us weak, stupid, low-browed narrow-horizoned hateful primates. God, never the less, likes us; loves us, in fact, and wishes us well.

God wants us to respond as well as we weak, stupid, low-browed narrow horizoned primates can. (God knows us and despite of everything, loves us.) I'm assuming that God didn't actually spit in the dust and make Adam out of the mud ball per Genesis. I'm guessing God watched the universe unfold and probably loves other beings besides us -- beings that are probably stronger, less stupid, mid-browed or better, and higher-and-wider-horizoned than us. I'm sure these other creatures have their own problems. Just because they are smarter than us doesn't mean they don't have flaws.

With Wayfarer's post, above, in the background, I'll add that the Christian language of salvation - being saved - really is not properly understood until the experience itself is, at the least, approached. Without at least that minimal effort, or some qualifying experience, which essentially means having an open mind and heart, it just ain't gonna happen and you might as well spare yourself the energy you'll waste opposing the idea.

And I suppose this is true of most mature religions, faiths, practices. Is a Zen Buddhist "saved" if and when he achieves satori?.Does a Christian achieve sartori if and when he's saved? I imagine folks in either case wouldn't waste too much time on the question. Rather I suspect they would recognize in each other a spiritual step taken, notwithstanding differences in the details and accord each other full respect on the basis of the achievement.

I've observed something that I'll share: Sophomores (read: people only partially educated - children) will talk passionately about anything. When they graduate and move on to their chosen profession or post-graduate work, they don't so much - if at all - engage in the idle chatter of their salad days. It's accurate to say they have put away childish things, childish talk, childish attempts at understanding. Religion, unfortunately is a topic that people play with, can play with, long after they should have put their childishness with it away.

In short, that spiritual experience, call it what you will, is serious business, and has been the subject of study and practice around the world for at least 4,000 years and likely much more. Ignorance on such a subject, except in the playpen, is merely grotesque and disturbing.

I'm not sure if the apparent indignation over the topic is directed at me or not. If so, apologies for making a parody where one was not asking for one.

Why do you think Tim Wood was parodying?

I noticed you used the Apostle Paul's formulation from Corinthians: "When I was a child, I thought like a child...

The idea that "human beings" are a fallen species has a lot to recommend it. It accounts for a lot of bad things that happen. — Bitter Crank

Yes, this seems an interesting line of inquiry.

PREFACE #1: One of the good things about holy books that don't seem to totally nail things down is that such inconclusiveness opens the door to many interpretations, which can inspire us to think about such fundamental subjects in an interesting variety of ways. This might be compared to the skilled philosophy professor who always answers a question with another question so that we think, instead of just memorize.

PREFACE #2: We might keep in mind that the Bible was written a long time ago and the original audience was largely uneducated peasants living short hard lives. So for example, you would probably explain love to a child in a manner quite different than you would discuss it with your grandmother. The point here is that many of us are rebelling against ancient stories which are ever less appropriate for modern audiences, but which may still contain some truth about the human condition which is worth considering.

With that out of the way, here's just one more interpretation of the "fallen species" and "being saved".

In my typoholic opinion, the short cut path is to skip over religion, philosophy and psychology etc, which might be seen as being just symptoms of the underlying mechanical process we call thought.

If we observe thought directly, we can see that it operates by a process of division. Observing our own thought directly, instead of observing what somebody says about thought, is the key, imho. Thus, don't read this post, watch your own mind.

You ignored that advice, so let's continue...

If we observe our own minds we will see that there is a division between the thinker and the thoughts. As example, consider the common phrase "I am thinking XYZ". "I" is experienced as one thing, the thoughts are experienced as another thing. "I" is experienced as the observer, while the thoughts are experienced as something separate being observed. This division process is built in to the nature of thought, and is thus a universal property of the human condition.

As this division process evolved in human beings we began to lose the intimate connection with reality we once had as primitive humans, and before that, animals. As example, consider your dog with his head out the car window as you travel down the road. Your dog's attention is totally focused on each moment that unfolds. Your dog is united with the here and now of reality, which is why he is such a compelling friend.

As we began to lose this intimate connection with reality religion emerged as an attempt to "get back to God", or put another way, re-establish the lost intimate connection with reality. Regrettably, religions are often thought based, thus fueling the very process which has caused the experience of division which religion is attempting to solve.

"Original sin" or "the fallen species" can be seen as the phenomena of thought diluting a previous intimate connection with reality, much like a baby separated from it's mother's breast. "Being saved" can be seen as "getting back to God" or if you prefer, restoring a lost connection with reality.

All of the above is primarily a very personal emotional experience, which is why generally speaking, on average, philosophers tend to suck at such inquiries because emotion is typically not our area of expertise. We want to think about this, analyze it, a process which takes us farther away from the experience we are attempting to investigate.

Now that you've wasted a bunch of time reading this post, let's get serious with a few practical suggestions...

1) Turn off the computer.
2) Go outside, ideally somewhere beautiful and peaceful.
3) Spend a lot of time there. A LOT of time.
4) Maybe smoke a bit of weed. Or maybe not.
5) Open yourself up, and ask to be saved.

Ask who? That doesn't matter. Forget about the who part. If the God concept appeals to you, ask God. If the God concept makes you puke, ask the vast mechanical reality, or whatever you perceive to be beyond yourself. It's the asking that matters. The opening up. And NOT where you direct your request.

The above way of looking at things could be religious, or it can have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Don't waste a lot of time here, you already know whether you like religion or not. Which ever is the case for you, be serious, and work with what you've got.

The winter hiking season is just underway here in north Florida, so I'm spending a LOT Of time in the woods as I do every winter. To the degree we are able to dial down the volume of thought, that which is separating us psychologically from reality, the real world can be experienced as the Garden Of Eden. Or whatever you want to call such an experience.

I had an experience a few days ago which was fun. I'd been standing still for about an hour watching some sunbeams come down between two trees. Just about the time this experience began feeling like I'd traveled back in time to the dawn of man in Garden of Eden, a jet came over the horizon behind me and flew directly between the trees and through the sunbeams, from my point of view. The dawn of time meets the space age. Ok, ok, so you probably had to be there... :smile:

As is true of most great sages :smile: I've way over complicated the above.

Why do we typically not experience an intimate relationship with reality? Because we're typically not paying attention to reality, but to the symbolic realm between our ears.

The only answer to this question that matters at all is the one you give yourself.

The winter hiking season is just underway here in north Florida, — Jake

Sorry for the sheer irrelevancy, but this made me laugh. Come North, Jake; if nothing else, Mt Washington awaits you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNqJgf_N3zM (This not actually Mt. Washington, but close by.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAF0ZlLBVs

We are all socially conditioned. Whoever told you you needed to be saved, probably a materialist, probably playing their part in shredding apart lambs.

You are probably a good guy, probably thoughtful. I dont know you, but i'll assume.

At the same time, as long as we participate in the profit loop, the materialism loop, where we want more and more and more, we are trapped.

Nothing is ever enough.

In my opinion, this is what we need saving from, but its not a wise decision to walk around telling other people where their deficiencies are.

This almost always results in cognitive dissonance and big trouble.

In my personal opinion, as long as we are doing things for EXCESS material gain at the expense of others, we are somewhat compromised and perpetuating the bad pursuit.

People telling people they need to be saved, in my opinion, are lacking true understanding of that which they are trying to express.

The whole idea of salvation is immoral. The claim is one must accept the very God that will torture them for all eternity if they don't. Now, what do we call this? Bullying people around. That's not moral, that is coerciveness at its finest.

Can't speak for all, but from a Catholic perspective your theology above is not quite accurate.

Since Vatican 2 - here is a Catholic description of "hell" and punishment -

Hell is not a place, but a state, a person's state of being, in which a person suffers from the deprivation of God. Hell is best understood as the condition of total alienation from all that is good, hopeful and loving in the world. This condition is a choice, the ultimate exercise of free will, not a punishment engineered by God.

This is not an argument one way or the other on your point - just a clarification on how some theists view the concept of "hell"

Rank Amateur: The reason for that statement is because the Catholics recognized the same immorality I did. But, since they have received no additional knowledge from when they claimed hell was a real place, they could not possibly have any justification for shifting gears, other than an acknowledgement that their previous claim about hell was immoral. It's also rather odd to claim hell is a state of mind, and engage in this blame the victim strategy. I don't believe in any God, but am not in hell, even by the Vatican's description. So, we have concrete, empirical evidence that this statement is false.

not arguing - I am no evangelist - believe as you like, allow the same for others -

Was just a clarification on what a particular groups actual teaching on a point you made is. Thought it may be of interest to be aware of this groups actual view is on the topic.

No worries - carry on

If you are in hell, or headed down the wrong path (leading to hell) then you need saving.

The claim is one must accept the very God that will torture them for all eternity if they don't. — LD Saunders

Without wishing to appear a Christian apologist, this is really not so. According to Christians, God doesn't torture anyone, or inflict any pain whatever. The pain that sinners experience in hell, is purely a consequence of their own actions. 'The doors of hell', said C S Lewis, 'are locked on the inside'.

In a generally secular culture, this is one of the gross misunderstandings of the nature of deity, which nowadays is depicted as a kind of celestial CEO, with executive responsibility for all the bad shit that happens in the world. And as there's a lot of bad shit that happens, then this guy must be either malevolent or incompetent. That sums up about 99% of what's written about the subject on this forum.

My mother was always sad that she wouldn't see me in heaven after we both died. She was saved, I am not. She's probably up there now asking for an exception to be made for her little boy, and giving God a hard time about it.

I have enough self-knowledge to know that I need to be saved, and enough intellectual integrity not to believe that there is anyone who can save me. Which doesn't prove that there isn't, because having intellectual integrity doesn't necessarily make you right.

According to Judeo-Christian view, abriged

Heaven is a place where there is no sin, the Hell with adam & eve, the question is "have you NEVER Comitted sin?"

Dude, as a human, SIN IS OUR BEING, even psychology said that human at the basic is a being that is slaves by Impulse and egoism (Freud said Lust : D).

Now knowing we have sin, can we go to heaven?

Of course not, BUT I can make my good deed plentier than my bad deed right? That would make me a good person.

Sorry dude, the Heaven works like the "Court System" no matter how good you are, we will still count that bad deeds, That is Justice.

Now then what could we do to go to heaven then? Well, just like the "Court System" you got to pay "The Fee". In court usually by jail sentence, or even money

Sadly, God HATED Sin, He hated it so much that human would not be able to pay the fees without perish! Now what to do... God loves us, but He cannot simply forgive our sin, that is "Corrupted" and "Unjust".

So God, according to the Judeo Christian view do the most UnGodly thing a God should do. Paying the Fee itself. God way of saving the human while also become just is by paying the price Himself.

That is why, the sentence "Jesus Died for Our Sin" comes.

We cannot be saved by doing anything. We simply can't pay the fee that God demand. Only God Himself can pay the Fee, but if you don't give your consent to Him, he cannot do anything.

So what is your choice? : D

Judaism and Christianity load a person with a ton of guilt from the get-go.

If you can avoid this brainwashing you will be infinitely better off.

If someone is a fanatic then the best thing is to keep away from them.

I´m a believer, but only in love and beauty. However, I can answer your simple question_

The question of the Original Sin has been popularized, or vulgarized, into a sort of debt we are born with. Agustine believed that this sin was passed on via male sperm. However, the concept itself has a more interesting and useful side.
People in the first millennium BC thought a lot about what makes life so miserable; why can´t we just have the easy and happy lives that we imagine or remember from childhood and why is everyone such a jerk. The myth of the Fall, that is quite universal, developed around the idea that something in human nature prevents a happier life and force on us this miserable state of affairs.
If you think of "sin" as "separation" things start to make sense; becouse "sinful acts" are really deeds that separate or alienate ourselves from Nature, Society, and Ourselves. These are movements that go against the impulse of integration, both internal and external. We all have it, and are born with it, becouse BOTH our biological and cultural selves are inherited, passed on from previous generations. Humans beings are domesticated primates, with a strong cultural and social nature, that brings together two poles in each person: individual VS social, and animal VS spiritual. This hybrid condition is not really adjusted and harmonized, so with the good things about our self-domestication and socialization, comes the bad things of this separation, strangement, poor integration that we suffer both in our soul and in our relationship with reality. Christianity proposes that the malady can be healed via a book cult, but that is deceitful, all cults and drugs are but distractions and substitutes for the real cure. Which is not in my knowledge either.

"Jesus died for our sins" it´s just a way of dealing with vengeful primates. It means: "you can forgive yourself, you can forgive others, and no physically or mentally or morally handicapped person needs to be pushed off the cliff (Greek pharmakos) or burnt at the Gehenna" (the valley in Judah where human and animal sacrifices were offered). Primates have a very strong pattern call "scapegoating", that is so basic and internalized that we use it with ourselves, we punish ourselves to gain "forgiveness" in the psychological level. And we punish others at the social level. The story of the Passion of Christ is a symbolic scapegoating event, that happens in our imagination and tricks our mind into thinking that no further scapegoating or revenge is required.

Another example is "an eye for an eye", which means that a punishment or repayment can not be greater than the offence. This was a Mesopotamian judicial principle that Jews had to include in their books, to prevent lynching and honour crimes ending in family slaughters, as those still committed throghout the Middle East, from Turkey to Pakistan, in islamized communities.

^Exactly, is an ancient concept, BUT the value is sound! the value is, most of the time, when we do wrong thing, we cannot fully fix or erased it. One of the problem of this world is we cannot fully make things right without making some things wrong. That concept is ancient, yes, and that makes it interesting, because that ancient concept is so real and like "Implanted" in human.

yes, blessings and curses come together, and everything we do has good and bad consequences. That is why I trust a corrupt person in power more than I trust a saint; the corrupt person calculates and schemes and tries to foresee consequences (to see they are beneficial to them), what in practice limits his or her scope. A saint or sanctimonious leader, however, wants to do ALL the good they can, and care not for further consequences becouse it´s intention and what makes you feel inside that counts. So a good-willed politician is way more scary than a wicked, corrupt one.

So a good-willed politician is way more scary than a wicked, corrupt one. — DiegoT

^I don't too agree with that. A Corrupt politician, in the end does thing to make him happy. I assume you're thinking of Machiavelli version of "Bad Politician". But Machiavelli kind of politician, is the kind of politician which couldn't be per say possible. Because Machiavelli Prince do bad things that magically don't result in bad consequence what so ever, in long term.

Now, it's hard dude, it's cool, but it's hard. Bad input with bad process WILL always lead to bad output (in a some way). Even history talk about the story of bad but smart politician who use bad deed to maintain order. it's rarely, even never result in good things.

And I don't agree with "Saint-like Politician, doesn't care about consequence" not exactly dude. A Smart Saint-Like politician will thinks of a long run good outcome, he/she wouldn't sacrifice other, he/she would only sacrifice him/herself. The main problem with saint-like politician, is they are usually "Weak". when You don't cheat against a player who cheats, most probable is you will lose. Saint-like politician can only hope that "The People" help he/she to enforce those rule.

Sorry, not a native, but you get the gist of it? :D

yes, your arguments are sound, and perhaps I´m being too cynical or pessimistic. I agree that corruption is by definition, not the best way to deal with public affairs, as it is in itself a distortion of proper functioning. However, what I say about "good" politicians is also true. We can not assume that "good" politicians understand the world well enough to choose wisely. A good politician tries to do what s/he think is best. This is horrible. Consider for example how feminist politicians think that the best thing for a country is to open borders and allow in all young men in raping age; becouse protecting the borders or any hesitation in "helping" those "poor refugees" from North Africa or the Middle East (without any filter whatsoever) would be "patriarchal" and "what men would do". That´s how cities at night in the North of Europe have become a hell for young women; and the more feminist the government, the more danger European girls have to face. All in good intention, and with a satisfied smile.

Adolf Hitler wanted to do what he (and Henry Ford) thought was the best for Humanity. Ché Guevara, when he shot people kneeling in a row, actually thought he was making a better world. He died for that cause, after he had killed so many. Robespierre, Marx, Mohammed, Mussolini, Mao, Phil Collins, all thought they were doing "the right thing" and helping the world...

When the government or a company, say Google, want to do all the good they can, is a blessing that not everybody is so saintly and some are actually corrupt. The leader of the opposition in Venezuela is safe in Madrid and not dead or being tortured by Maduro, becouse he was lucky enough to find corrupt guards in his escape through the border that could be bought with filthy money. Oskar Schindler was a really corrupt businessman, God bless him. All Italian mafia capos behind bars were betrayed by other gangsters that did not play by the rules and thought only of their own asses.