Being "saved"

[dlamberth]

Rather than worry about one's soul being "saved" or not, would we not be better off worrying about loving our fellow human beings.

I couldn't agree more. The world would be in a much better state if believers spent as much time helping those in need as they do trying to save their soul and the soul of others.

.

 

[smaneck]

Neo-orthodoxy? That's exactly what I mean by old-school.

I know it's 'old school.' It is just the only academic approach I know of that bears any resemblance to what you are calling to 'classical orthodoxy'. Those approaches that do are simply not academic.

I rest my case.

What case? You have yet to present one shred of evidence that there is *any* credible academic approach to Christianity which rejects higher criticism.

a) Luther was wrong about James and changed his mind- ask any Lutheran.

Why would I have to ask a Lutheran? If it were true you be able to show me a quote to that effect from the man himself. It is not like he didn't write enough. I'll even take something from his Table Talks to that effect if you can produce it.

Lutheran dogmatic works accept the full NT canon so his comments on it are not relevant.

Luther's own comments are relevant to Luther's beliefs?

But then again, you claim to be a Luther scholar so why don't you simply acknowledge that and stop trying to makes points out of context?

Sorry, but scholars like primary sources. We don't rely on denominational church dogma to determine what someone believes.

b) The resurrection proves everything Jesus said, and thus everything His disciples and Apostles taught.

How?

That would mean that your guru guy is a fraud.

Don't have a guru guy.

c) If your writing style and knowledge hasn't changed in twenty years, then you have a growth problem.

Did I say anything about my knowledge not changing?

You really need to learn to read a text!

Personally, I bet if you honestly compared your first writings to now you would be astonished at how much you've changed and how much your grammar etc has as well.

My first writings? Sure. But not my writings from twenty years ago.

Your three answers to me above simply prove to me that you're not engaging the discussion

So says the guy who does nothing but engage in ad hominem.

and to be honest, I think you're as flippant about this as I am.

I'll grant you, you are flippant.

They're almost completely missing the point.

The problem is, I keep looking for evidence to substantiate your assertions and all you manage to come up with is dogmatic assertions and insults.

If you really don't want to engage a point simply snip my posts rather than feel the need to snipe at every sentence.

Whenever you are ready to make a point with evidence to support it, please let me know.

It's the 21stC. That's where I live, and continue to. Differing Christian theologies have a contemporary 21stC program, and they are being developed.

If they are, I doubt very seriously if you know anything about it. So far you've presented no evidence that it even exists

I can't understand why you are here- you've never said a nice thing about Christianity that I can think of, and I can't imagine you being here to learn.

Then you haven't been listening.

But tell me why are you posting in this folder given the fact it is supposed to be devoted to creating understanding between other religions and you only insult them?

As for me, I came here initially because at the time my religion was being discussed. I stuck around mostly because I was disgusted by all the bigotry towards Muhammad and the Qu'ran and wished to set the record straight.

 

[Rationalt]

Nobody seems to get a clear cut answer regarding bahai doctrine of fate of souls in the here after.

What happens to souls who don't regard bahaiullah as prophet ?.

 

[light upon light]

Nobody seems to get a clear cut answer regarding bahai doctrine of fate of souls in the here after.

What happens to souls who don't regard bahaiullah as prophet ?.

What happens after death has nothing to do with whether you believe Baha'u'llah is a prophet or not. It's entirely about the degree of love and beauty you have developed in your own being through your decisions and orientation in your life. The name "Baha'i" or any other name by itself means nothing:

“Know thou of a truth: He that biddeth men be just and himself committeth iniquity is not of Me, even though he bear My name.” - Baha'u'llah, Hidden Words

“the man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í.” - Abdu'l-Baha in London

Note that "Baha'i" means "follower of the light" or "of the light".

So, Abdu'l-Baha is saying is that what we call ourselves doesn't matter. What matters is whether we love and serve the light, or turn away from it.

 

[Rationalt]

Follower of light .. huh.

Does it mean people were not given light before bahaiuallah ?.

What happens after death has nothing to do with whether you believe Baha'u'llah is a prophet or not. It's entirely about the degree of love and beauty you have developed in your own being through your decisions and orientation in your life. The name "Baha'i" or any other name by itself means nothing:

“Know thou of a truth: He that biddeth men be just and himself committeth iniquity is not of Me, even though he bear My name.” - Baha'u'llah, Hidden Words

“the man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í.” - Abdu'l-Baha in London

Note that "Baha'i" means "follower of the light" or "of the light".

So, Abdu'l-Baha is saying is that what we call ourselves doesn't matter. What matters is whether we love and serve the light, or turn away from it.

 

[light upon light]

Follower of light .. huh.

Does it mean people were not given light before bahaiuallah ?.

Of course it does not mean that.

 

[Rationalt]

Of course it does not mean that.

Then, what it means ?. I am confused.If it (The light) was already given what is the point of having another prophet ?.

 

[light upon light]

Then, what it means ?. I am confused.If it (The light) was already given what is the point of having another prophet ?.

Because people keep forgetting the core of the message. So God reminds us periodically with a beautiful infusion of spiritual truth and inspiration from God's Messengers.

Also, social conditions change, so things that were acceptable religious teachings at one time ("Slaves, obey your masters.", "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") reach a point of unacceptability, so the social rules of religion need to be updated and renewed.

 

[dlamberth]

Then, what it means ?. I am confused.If it (The light) was already given what is the point of having another prophet ?.

Remembrance. Because we are caught up in our everyday activities, we need reminding. The Prophets come along every now and than to point towards the Light and in the process reinvigorate our spiritual understanding.

.

 

[Rationalt]

Because people keep forgetting the core of the message. So God reminds us periodically with a beautiful infusion of spiritual truth and inspiration from God's Messengers.

Well, the prophet can reemphasize the CORE message without bringing new message.

Also, social conditions change, so things that were acceptable religious teachings at one time ("Slaves, obey your masters.", "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") reach a point of unacceptability, so the social rules of religion need to be updated and renewed.

I don't think slaves ever wanted to be enslaved.

So, as per your interpretation, People wanted to have slaves and hence god gave messages like " Enjoy booty but fear Allah", and then when people no longer want to have slaves god sends prophet (or manifestation) ... hey folks scratch that forget about booty but fear allah all the same.

Way to go.

 

[ContraMundum]

I know it's 'old school.' It is just the only academic approach I know of that bears any resemblance to what you are calling to 'classical orthodoxy'. Those approaches that do are simply not academic.

So are you prepared to admit you are out of touch with current trends in Christian theology?

FYI- classical orthodoxy (aka paleo-orthodoxy) is a movement in Christianity mainly led by the likes of Thomas Oden and Alistair McGrath.

Luther's own comments are relevant to Luther's beliefs?

You're entirely missing the point- again. You've ascribed Luther an authority no one else does in order to make a point you can't win. If Luther personally couldn't reconcile theology of James and Paul, he was in the minority. Hence, his students and followers readily accepted James as canonical. Luther's doubts on James were mainly to do with an uncertain (according to Luther) Apostolic authorship. He lumped it in his canon in the category of antilegomena. He did however praise it, preach from it and does a pretty decent job of reconciling it with Paul.

In His "Disputation Concerning Justification", he takes James 2:17, 26 and says of it:

“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

There are of course, many, many quotes from his Sermons and even his early commentary on Romans that pretty much lay to rest your assertion that Luther could not reconcile Paul and James. Would you like more?

To further the point, the opinion of denominations does have more authority than the opinions of individuals- especially when those denominations have collectively studied and debated the opinions of individuals who are important to them.

Sorry, but scholars like primary sources. We don't rely on denominational church dogma to determine what someone believes.

Not a wise comment. Church dogma is often the primary source.

But tell me why are you posting in this folder given the fact it is supposed to be devoted to creating understanding between other religions and you only insult them?

You confuse someone disagreeing with you to set the record straight with ad-hominem. Perhaps a lowering of the authority of one's own opinions might help?

You are a pot calling the kettle black....see below.

As for me, I came here initially because at the time my religion was being discussed. I stuck around mostly because I was disgusted by all the bigotry towards Muhammad and the Qu'ran and wished to set the record straight.

Welcome to the "karmic" backlash. You insult Christians non-stop, and you don't seem to be able to see that it's flat out insulting and ignorant. It's our forum. Coming here to attack our scriptures, our history, and constantly blame every little political issue you have on the Church is making a few of us "disgusted by all the bigotry" towards the Christian faith and I just want to "set the record straight". How's it feel to be held accountable for your own provocation?

 

[Zoness]

Rather than worry about one's soul being "saved" or not, would we not be better off worrying about loving our fellow human beings?

Is it possible that "salvation" in fact comes from compassion and selfless love for others?

I know I feel much closer to God when I am doing God's work - that is, being of service to humanity - than when I am worrying about my own spiritual state.

The biggest religions in the world (Christianity & Islam) got that way not with love but with a moderate amount of force; it wasn't always violent but there was some force involved. Both of them assert that whatever humans are doing right now is WRONG and that it must change or one will face eternal punishment and suffering.

Simply loving people doesn't show enough submission to a religious authority or structure, one must adhere to a set of rules and beliefs and retain a specific worldview but be sufficiently 'saved' in their respective religion.

Does 'salvation' matter? I don't know, but I tend towards skepticism because as my post illustrates, it seems to be just a way to get people to do what you want them to do. I'd love to hear thoughts on that subject but I don't want to read walls of text that I wasn't apart of earlier in the thread.