Yo, Christians

[Tux]

I had a discussion with a Christian earlier and she said that people should be "saved" by Jesus. She kept going on how Jews, Hindus, etc so should do so.

Thus, I have this question for here since I was too busy leaving to get errands done.

If a non-Christian like a Hindu believed Jesus saved us, do they have to read the Bible or can they stick with what they have now plus Jesus belief?

[mermaid]

1. Well, Now...

It would seem to me that the typical Christian would say NO...they would have to abandon their Hindu beliefs in favor of Christianity, or no good, they don't get saved.

That is the fundamentalist Christian view...and the Ten commandments says "thou shalt bring no other Gods before me."

Now, I happen to be a Unitarian Christian. and I have a different view than most other Christians...or so-called Christians.

Firstly, I do not believe in Trinitarian teachings. I believe that God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit are one and the same guy...and not three seperate guys. Thus is the foundations of Unitarianism.

I am, by practice, a Unitarian Universalist...and the Universalists believe in universal salvation of all souls.

I'm not sure I buy into that Universalist belief, because there are some who do not deserve saving...some who have knowingly and willingly done evil, and are not only non-repentntant...but are in fact proud of the evil they have committed. Thus I say not all souls are saved.

I believe, as do Unitarians, in the inherent dignity and worth of each and every person. I also believe, as do Unitarians, in a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. I also believe in respecting the individual spiritaul path of each person, even though their path may not be the same as my own.

I further believe it is quite possible to be saved, and be on a different path than the fundamentalist yahoo "Christians" would say is the "one and only path to salvation."

Come on..."You follow this path...which holds these beliefs (which conveniently happen to match my own beliefs) or you go to Hell!!" Yeah...how much sense does that make?? How fucking arrogant is that??

Yet, that is the standard fundamentalist Christian response.

I have, myself, accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my own personal Savior. I continue to practice my faith in a UU church, because I have yet to find a Christian church that isn't full of phoneys and Pharisees, and foaming at the mouth Freeptards!

And, more to the point...though many of our members in our UU church are NOT Christians...many are Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Agnostics, Wiccans, Atheists, and yes, some Christians, too...but I would say that, in my church...the people actually act and behave more in a Christ-like manner than you will find in the average "Christian" church.

So, as a Unitarian Christian...I would say that it is very possible for such a one to be saved, while still retaining his original Hindu beliefs...but I would be in a minority, I think, among self-described Christians in asserting this opinion.

In fact, if you like, you may read a sermon I delivered, prior to my accepting Jesus, to my UU church.

The link is below

http://www.wildflowerchurch.org/index_files/Archived_sermons/responsible.pdf

[Stunster]

2. In Catholic theology

non-Christians are saved by Christ but not in virtue of having beliefs about Christ. Likewise, a Christian could fail to be saved, despite professing a belief that Christ is his savior (for example, our current president).

A person who does not possess the Spirit of Christ cannot be saved. But they don't have to know that it's the Spirit of Christ they possess. They might call it something else, or not call it anything at all. Christ offers his Spirit to all, whether the person knows anything about Christ or not. This offering of the Spirit by Christ, and the decision to accept or reject it, takes place deep within each person, maybe at a subconscious level sometimes, and it is a process that lasts years---indeed, a lifetime.

Salvation in Catholic theology does not depend on knowing the 'right' propositions. An illiterate old Hindu woman in rural India who has no idea what the Council of Nicea defined about Christ may be closer to Christ, and thus to salvation, than a famous theologian who has written 6 books on Nicea. Her life may be truly marked by the Spirit of Christ, whereas the theologian's may be marked by self-centred ambition and not by the Spirit of Christ.

On the other hand, this does not mean that it's ok to be indifferent or resistant to the truth. So, for example, if someone refused to accept Christianity merely out of hatred for Jesus because he was a Jew, or merely because they preferred to live for the pursuit of material wealth, rather than because s/he thought Christianity was false, then that would be morally blameworthy and might endanger the person's prospects of salvation.

Salvation cannot be imposed on anyone contrary to their will. But it is available through the Spirit of Christ to all, whether they are fully conscious of who Christ is or not.

[Tux]

3. So......

Acting close to Christ gets the ticket? Even if you never knew he lived? Odd. Did Jesus make mention anything about while alive?

I'm just interested since this could be used against the religious right if they keep pushing Jesus onto everyone.

[Stunster]

6. Yup

Acting close to Christ gets the ticket?

Yup.

Even if you never knew he lived?

Yup.

Odd.

No, it's not odd, because Jesus sent his Spirit into the world, and the Spirit goes wherever it wills. The Spirit of Christ is not confined by human expectations or ideas about salvation's limits.

Did Jesus make mention anything about while alive?

Yup! For instance:

Matthew 7: 21; John 14: 21; John 15: 10-14

[Tux]

8. "Matthew 7: 21; John 14: 21; John 15: 10-14"

Matt's paragraph:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

John's paragraph:

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

and John's 2nd paragraph:

If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command.


So he did mention this while alive. Now if Christians are supposed to go by that, why are fundies and others avoiding it? Why are they stuck on the Torah?

[mermaid]

11. They Are Stuck On The Torah

because they wish to control the actions of others. Ever notice how they emphasize, and seek to enforce, those parts of the Torah that would not inconvenience themselves...but only enemies of their own choosing?

they conveniently ignore those parts of the Torah, and the rest of the Bible...that require them to make any fundamental changes in their own lives...they allow themselves to retain their comfortable bigotries and prejudices...they seek to codify into civil law those parts of the Torah that would inconvenience, and cause harm...to enemies of their own choosing.

This is not living in Christ. And when the Day of Judgement arrives, those people will be saying, "but, Lord...I did this and this and this for You." And the Lord will say unto them, "turn away from me, for I knew you not."

They are the false prophets that the Bible warned us, in Revelation...would be among us in the final days. They are the modern-day Pharisees. And they are stuck on the Torah because they have the "invader mentality." They truly feel no remorse or shame for any act committed against an enemy of their own choosing, for, in their eyes, such people are not human. Thus, any atrocity committed against them is not damning. This is truly the way they believe.

No, they won't SAY that in words. Thier ACTIONS speak of this belief, though, as though they shouted it through a megaphone.

[Tux]

12. In other words

Their false prophets, end of the world is near, and I still didn't get a job so I can attend grad school over Bible thumpers makinga big deal about me attending their church, read the Bible, etc? Great.

[mermaid]

14. Hmmm, I'm Not Quite Following

the chain of events here. Mind elaborating a bit?

But yes, they are false prophets, yes I do believe the end is near. The rest of your statement is a bit unclear to me, perhaps you can elaborate a bit more on your circumstances?

[Extend a Hand]

4. I believe that Jesus came to save *all* the world

and that that is exactly what he will do. This concept is called "universal salvation." It is not accepted by most mainstream religions but it *is* biblical.

if you are interested in the christian universalist view on this topic, the following link provides answers to alot of questions.

http://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/index.html

[mermaid]

5. Aha!!

So you are a Christian Universalist, in the same way I am a Unitarian Christian!!

I've never personally accepted the Universalist part of UU tradition, as I believe some souls will not, and should not be saved, and some souls deserve not salvation.

I know, it is not mine to judge, yet, still, I've a hard time with the notion that someone like Hitler would have his soul saved, after the horror he presided over.

I believe that salvation is available to all, but one must ASK for it...not by their words, BUT BY THEIR ACTIONS!! I believe one must attempt, as best as possible, to live as Christ would have us live...and treat one another.

That, of course, is the Unitarian tradition of social justice that is guiding my own opinion on this particular matter.

Again, I believe salvation is attainable for all...but that not all will receive it.

Again, I am a Unitarian Christian...and I do tend to diverge quite a bit from what one might consider traditional Christian dogma.

[Tux]

7. UU?

I'm a UU Buddhist myself. I do go for the one god hypthesis and as for universal salvation, Enlightenment can be abtained for all with effort. I just never understood how some Christians can condemn some people while other Christians could care less and other say belief in Jesus would save anyone.

So far, it seems to me, that doing as Jesus would gets it done.

I still believe in reincarnation though....some experiences.

[Extend a Hand]

9. I'm still looking for a church...

I believe that people will be judged and punished for their actions in this life. I just don't believe

1)that punishment is eternal for humans due to the grace of Jesus Christ
2)that anyone is unredeemable-- people like Hitler and Dahmer must have something wrong with them to act out such sickness.

I'm much closer to a unitarian christian than a fundamentalist :)

[mermaid]

10. I'd Say That We Have More In Common, Theologically, Than Not

but I still have to reject the notion of universal salvation for all souls. I just can't see some souls as being redeemable.

That said, I'm not sure that there is really such a place a Hell...where one suffers for all eternity...but I do believe some are, and should be, denied salvation, and are not allowed to enter Paradise.

Again, this belief is not rock-solid for me, it may change with time and experience, but that is one part of traditional UU teaching that I could never fully embrace.

Again, I say that, while Unitarians and Universalists have much in common, I personally identify more with the Unitarian part of that equation...whereas you seem to identify more with the Universalist side of that equation.

You did know that, until 1961, Unitarianism and Universalism were two separate faiths? They merged in 1961. I have much more strongly resonated to the traditional Unitarian belief structure. Thus it is I refer to myself as a Unitarian Christian.

Whereas you, of course, are free to define your own self...one with your viewpoint, I would tend to regard more as a Universalist Christian...or Christian Universalist if you prefer.

That said, I think we probably share more beliefs than not.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Hitler's salvation

Hitler seems to be the main break Christians cut themselves for hatred and judgementalism. I maintain that it's wrong. Hitler's punishment is not my concern.

It's not for me to judge Hitler or anyone else I don't like. God does that, and it's entirely possible that not a single soul will be lost. The history of the spiritual universe has been, and will be, far more expansive than that of the material universe (or world, or seculum).

Hitler did a lot of evil, and that's self-evident. Yet the Bible tells me that Christ died for all sins, even those of Hitler. Since I have no idea of how God will judge, all I can really do is to leave that decision to God.

I also take it to mean that if I were to come across Hitler in the afterlife, and he was suffering in Hell, that I should witness Christ to him, if possible, as Hitler would then be one of the "least of my brothers".

In the physical world, I had no problem with the Allies working to kill Hitler. But the rules for the physical world are different. Defeating the Nazi war machine (and the Italian Fascisti, and the Japanese Tojoists) was a necessity to prevent the continuation and increase of tremendous human suffering; spiritually, the war against evil has God, and not Churchill or Roosevelt, as its C.O.

Yes, there's the problem of squaring the salvation of Hitler (or any other evil person) with his victims. I have no idea how God will take care of that problem, either, but my faith tells me that it will happen.

I neither excuse Hitler's horrendous crimes, nor do I spend any time figuring out how he should spend his eternity. It saves me a lot of grief to leave the final decisions about the universe to God.

--p!

[silverlib]

18. Perhaps Hitler and those like him have a choice?

I've often thought that perhaps salvation is universal, but with free will, salvation may not always be accepted.

I can think of a few "damned" souls who, upon meeting God would possibly be so arrogant as to refuse his goodness, oneness and perfection.

Does this make any sense to anyone but me?

[Dogmudgeon]

19. That's probably the "normal" interpretation

The problem with free will arguments (pro or con) is that they depend on causality being part of spiritual existence. That may not be the case.

As for rejection of God, it may be relative. If a person rejects God under the effects of human sin, is that really a rejection? This is why I think that the spritual universe may be a lot bigger than we are used to imagining it. Suppose someone like a Hitler had 100,000 years -- or ten million -- to work through his evil? What if it only takes ten seconds? (And these scenarios still assume a causal spiritual universe.)

If Jesus is our spiritual "buddy" -- a likely situation given the Gospel(s), if a constricted phrase for it -- then we won't ever have to go it alone.

We can't really know at this point in our existence. All we do know is that when we die, that will be the end of Earthly life -- maybe. For everything that comes after it, we have to go on faith.

That's why when I hear "get saved NOW or suffer eternally!" I have to laugh. That's as pagan an idea as ever existed, and it actually comes from the early Celtic tribes.

Faith in Jesus is the cure for theophobia. And for evil, too.

--p!

[GOPBasher]

16. Thanks for that link! It's very interesting to me. nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. I've heard some Hindus

believe that Jesus is an incarnation of Brahman, just as Ram and Krishna were. They also believe Buddha was an incarnation as well (I read this in a comic book from India, btw, so realize the source)

[Zoskie]

17. Vishnu, not Brahman

The Buddha is usually considered to be one of the ten "official" avatars, or incarnations, of Vishnu, the Hindu god of preservation; Rama and Krishna are two others. There are also some non-human ones--Vishnu has been said to appear on earth as a fish, a boar, and a tortoise, and there are also a bunch of unofficial incarnations. Vishnu is considered to represent loving kindness, and so he takes human (or otherwise) form and comes to earth to help those in need.

I've heard too that some Hindus consider Jesus to be included as one of Vishnu's avatars, although I don't know where I read that. But I suspect it's safe to say that Hinduism, with its tradition of gods becoming human, would have no problem with the idea of Jesus being the human incarnation of God. Where Hindus would differ from Christians is in regarding Jesus to be the one and only definitive incarnation of God; to Hinduism, suggesting that God has become flesh in only one instance sounds like placing limits on a limitless God.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. thanks for the correction

its been a long time since I read about this. I appreciate the correction, and agree with your closing statement.

[Lerkfish]

21. that's interesting...I have a personal theory about god and existence...

which is this:

I think its possible that God created everything, the wonderous universe...saw it and said it was good. But then, being perfect, his perception and understanding of the universe was singular. So, he separated his perfect self into billions of created imperfect beings in a great diversity of intellect, experience, personality and circumstances so that each of our individual views of the universe would be different.
then, at the end of the experiment, God will gather us all up and reintegrate us into himself, so that even a perfect being can be enriched through the lives of imperfect beings.

Since we are all pieces of God, that is how he loves us completely, and is sad when we don't live up to our best potential. But even those who do not are still loved and will still be reintegrated at the judgement, in one form or another.

For that reason, God values DIVERSITY over conformity, love over domination, free choice over predeterminisim. I think the diversity of religion (or lack of) is a good thing because it only increases the diversity of experience for later reintegration.

I have no basis for this theory, but its one I've felt in my bones all my life, Even though I'm a liberal christian, I have always honored and respected the differing views of various religions for that reason. Who am I to say their diverse path should be stalled or converted to my own path? I am glad, of course, if others agree with me, but I don't need them to feel good about my own path.

[Az]

22. The name or the word?

What does it mean to accept Jesus? Does lip service and the claim that one accepts that some guy named Jesus died for our sins gain access to heaven? Or is it more complex? Does one have to accept Jesus and the things he taught to truly accept Jesus?