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

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

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

I agree.


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?

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". — 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). — Mariner

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.

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 — Mariner

I agree.

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. — Mariner

Could you expand on this?

St. Thomas needed proof — John

What do you mean?

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

I agree. — Agustino

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

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? — Agustino

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

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. — CasKev

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.

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.

I think the mystics get closest — Noble Dust

Who do you admire?

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. — Noble Dust

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

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. — Noble Dust

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.

So an unconditional salvation would stem from that reality. — Noble Dust

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

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

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. — andrewk

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.

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 Nirvāṇa 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.

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

(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.

'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.

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? — Buxtebuddha

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.

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? — Buxtebuddha

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

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. — Buxtebuddha

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.

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

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.

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.

Who do you admire? — Buxtebuddha

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.

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

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.

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

Because it's a suicide attempt, or what?

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

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.

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

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

Love is unconditional. — andrewk

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

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

I would say so.

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? — Buxtebuddha

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Who do you admire? — Buxtebuddha

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

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

Eh?

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

Therein lies the rub with universalism.

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?

and a little Eckhart

Tolle, or Meister?

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

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

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

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

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

Christians have used this expression as well.

Karen Armstrong — Wayfarer

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

Well I think I have a spiritual disposition — andrewk

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

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? — andrewk

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.

Not to sound too sharp — Thorongil

Only too brief.

I would not recommend reading her at all. — Thorongil

I’ll let the OP make her own judgement.