Salvation from what?

[Peter]

Christians are always going on about salvation and how I should want it. Exactly what threat do I want salvation from and who or what is the source of this threat? Is this threat real or imagined? Can I talk to someone who has suffered by ignoring this threat? Maybe I'm atheist simply because nobody has been able to convince me a real threat exists. So convince me.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 105 by Zzyzx]

A belief in punishment in the afterlife comes from hope for justice.

However most people die who hope for justice expect the injustices done to them to be dealt with and not their own injustices.

Jesus is the one that puts it most plainly that we should not be so sure that a just God won't deal with us as well.

And that is why you argue as you do. Once we believed that the bar was at a level everyone could reach but post Jesus the realization is that none are just.

But the hope for hell is my hope for justice and not from fear.

So you think that God all the ones who go to heaven want to know that people are suffering for all eternity in hell? I sorry, hell as punishment just doesn't make sense. But the evil consigning themselves to oblivion because they can't stand up to the light of Truth, does.

Do we feel guilty because we are or because we are told to?

I think my "light of Truth" analogy indicates that the evil can't stand themselves because of what they are. We would judge ourselves without the ability to lie to ourselves anymore. And I think we might be very surprised at some of those who are guilty, and some of those who aren't. We're unable to maintain our illusions, delusions and faades which are all stripped away.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 101 by ttruscott]

Excuse me but you misread again...can you not see the ? or do you reject its meaning to keep up a false attack?

Attack? Seriously? Pa-leeze My question was legit - answering a question with a question is a way to get you thinking. If you don't want to answer it, fine. But I know a lot about the things you mentioned - FYI

Care to address the questions asked or are you diverting to save face? That's fine if you are - I just don't want to waste my time with any games you're playin here.

[ttruscott]

...

Frankly it is tantamount to preaching since

A. your claims are unsupported or you refuse to support them

My claims are personally supported only and supported by Scripture in interpretation, yes. I cannot and refuse to try to prove them.

B. your claims can't be debated

Not according to the rules of debate that only that which can be proven can be offered in the debate, no, they can't. They can only be discussed in light of their internal logic with the Christian system and compared to the orthodoxy interpretation to ask which is the better understanding of the system.

C. its circular, your claims are true because you believe them and you believe them because they are true.

I believe the pce interpretations of reality because they do seem to me to be the best explanation for our reality given so far. Nothing about my believing them makes them true in that the 'truth' was there before me and I stumbled upon it. I used to not claim my ideas should be considered to be true at all but only showed that a better interpretation of the bible could be found but I was chastised for not really believing in myself and decided to defend my take on reality from a stronger stance. This in turn strengthened my faith into a conviction.

D. This claim is not made once in the bible it is inferred. It is not specifically spelled out anywhere. To me it appears this claim originated to resolve the paradox of suffering. However, this simply just creates another paradox in of itself.

As many Christian (and Jewish) doctrines rest upon what is implied from what is stated, I find myself in good company. The paradox of suffering is only one of the many complications that pce addresses and as I grew in my understanding of how it reliably addresses each argument of disunity between the sects and is more true to the self revelation of God's attributes, I gave it more and more of my faith until now my faith in pce can be called a true conviction.

I'd be glad to discuss the paradox you see in pce but you will have to be specific as I do not see it yet.

I don't find you rude and I rather enjoy your points of view I find them interesting in of themselves. I just don't see how they can be debated or anyone can have a debate with you about them.

I too find the restrictions of the debate format to be weighted heavily on the side of the secular materialistic atheist, as if it were designed to put spiritual speculations and convictions to shame. I do feel that I have been somewhat helpful in this forum to keep people on track to not misuse lack of proof to mean a lack of evidence which repeatedly occurs.

But surely it is not just the inability to debate a topic that makes discussion of the topic tantamount to preaching? I have never considered that discussing Christian dogma in an academic way was preaching which to me has always been limited to emotional exhortations to believe and to convert. It took me awhile to understand I was out of step with the forums approach to this, that any mention of Christian things is preaching unless it is being used only to express what the Christian system says in support of some other idea, so I now try to talk with a little more care.

I might add that I have read much more emotional ranting against Christianity here than any emotional preaching for it but one is banned and the other not.

I have been involved here since Jan 2012 and I think it is fair to say that in that time I have seen a slipping off the intense focus on debating rules because everyone could see the unfairness of coming to a spiritual site and demanding that it conform to a secular format of scientific materialism. It has been much appreciated and I do not think the slow segue into a discussion has yet hurt the forum at all.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

.
A thought:

"Salvation" could be alleviation of FEAR -- fear of death and fear of punishment in a proposed "afterlife."

Fear of death may be natural and a human characteristic.

Fear of punishment in an "afterlife" is artificial and is promoted by religion. It cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary.

Might we not say that fear is the opposite of hope? We hope for what we would like, we fear what we dislike. To have an unproven hope about the future such as the safe return of a love one, would cary an almost natural fear that the hope will not be realized.

When I put my child into a car with his friend's mother driving I have hope she will bring the child home safely but that then brings to mind a fear it will go bad. To rest on hope rather than to crumble under fear would then be the basis for faith, our unproven hopes.

Therefore I would suggest that rather than religion using an artificial, that is, unproven, fear of the after life to promote itself, it might be rather an expression of an understanding of reality that brings the focus back to hope and as such is a predictable outcome of our psychology, even if the spiritual world is imaginary.

Of course this is moot if the 'can't be proven to not be imaginary' afterlife really does have existence and consequences.

Peace, Ted

[Peter]

...

I'm sorry Ted but that sounds like white noise to me from a church pamphlet. I'm sure you believe all that with all your heart because somehow it makes you feel good or secure about life. Not to get too personal but you can't show any of those beliefs are true.

Yes, it is fairly orthodox isn't it, not like my usual fare...

I've been clear from day one, 2.5 yrs ago when I joined, that I rejected the whole premise that anything about spirituality can be proven or shown to be true because in my reality we must live by faith, an unproven hope.

Somehow I survived and have made some friends and got to say my thing until now some people actually remember very well where I stand.

Peace, Ted

You realize that placebos frequently cure that which ails us? I'm glad you were cured of what ailed you and now you hope the cure wasn't just a placebo. I understand the hope you feel but it's something that I'll actually have to have evidence for. That's just me I guess. By the way, I disagree that we must live by blind (religious) faith. I constantly strive to believe only that which is evidenced or at least rational based on the facts we know about the universe.

[Peter]

Christians are always going on about salvation and how I should want it. Exactly what threat do I want salvation from and who or what is the source of this threat? Is this threat real or imagined? Can I talk to someone who has suffered by ignoring this threat? Maybe I'm atheist simply because nobody has been able to convince me a real threat exists. So convince me.

I'm not a Christian (i.e. an advocate of Paul's divine Jesus), but I do believe that Jesus and John the Baptist were right when they called people to repent. Repent of what and why you ask? If you have no regrets for the way you may have treated other people (do you), and if there is no hereafter where you review your life under the spotlight of Truth, then hell, you're good to go--no salvation required. No need to even ax the question.

I have mind crushing regret about some choices I've made in my life. I live with it and I learn from it. When possible I even apologize for it. It would be obscene to pile my regrets on another human even if that was the humans purpose. I deal with my regrets in this life because it's the only one I know exists.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 114 by Peter]

Well then, you've done all you can do, especially since there's no way for us to tell if there's a God and/or Hereafter or not.