Saved Atheist

[firstfloor]

Under the law versus under the gospel of grace.
So it is, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -- Galatians 2:21. So the requested qualification does make a difference.

Its definitely about obedience. Romans 2:13 - For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

[OingoBoingo]

Even if there were only two. The requested qualification is still relevant. A short list Catholic\orthodox\protestant\baptist\. . . \Mormon\Jehovah's witnesses\ . . . etc.

As I said, it was a digression. It wasn't really meant to address whatever point you're making (which I'm not sure I totally get anyways).

[Doug Shaver]

The punishment is Hell without God.

Yes. Also known as death. Otherwise, Romans 6:23 is not true.

[Doug Shaver]

but for most evangelical Christians, salvation is also about the more than abundant life in the here and now.

The notion that righteous living is an effective way to enrich one's present life is hardly unique to Christianity.

[OingoBoingo]

The notion that righteous living is an effective way to enrich one's present life is hardly unique to Christianity.

What's your point?

[Doug Shaver]

What's your point?

That it is not a specifically Christian teaching and therefore not specifically related to salvation.

[shunyadragon]

You may not believe in the "whom" or "from what", or think they are "weird", but that doesn't change the fact that Christians are using the word "saved" according to its normal definition (of being saved by someone from something).
(Also Christians say that the payoff begins immediately, not only post-mortem, but that's perhaps another discussion.)

By using the term in a non-standard way (without a "by whom/what" or "from what") you are engaging in equivocation.

The equivocation of the religious meaning of ' to save, saved, salvation,' is on your shoulders. In fact the word 'salvation' has no meaningful use in the secular world. 'To save, salvation, and saved' in the differing various definitions of Christian denominations bears no resemblance to the secular definitions of what it means 'to save' or 'be saved' in the secular use of the word is which has a purely well defined physical and other secular meanings in the real world of human affairs with no reference to afterlife considerations nor spiritual issues.

The consensus seems to be:
saved by: God
saved from: sin, death, and estrangement from God.

This definition and concept has no relationship to the secular world use of the verb 'to save.'.

[OingoBoingo]

That it is not a specifically Christian teaching and therefore not specifically related to salvation.

That doesn't follow.

[OingoBoingo]

The equivocation of the religious meaning of ' to save, saved, salvation,' is on your shoulders. In fact the word 'salvation' has no meaningful use in the secular world. 'To save, salvation, and saved' in the differing various definitions of Christian denominations bears no resemblance to the secular definitions of what it means 'to save' or 'be saved' in the secular use of the word is which has a purely well defined physical and other secular meanings in the real world of human affairs with no reference to afterlife considerations nor spiritual issues.




This definition and concept has no relationship to the secular world use of the verb 'to save.'.

What you're saying is nonsense. Just because the word "salvation" or "saved" is being applied to a particular situation in Christian belief does not mean that the same word doesn't resemble the secular definition. Its the same word with the same meaning regardless of its application. The word "salvation" and "saved" has the same meaning in the Christian faith as it does the Baha'i faith even if salvation is obtained in different ways (though maybe not so different as some would think). So if you're going to say the Christian meaning of the word has no resemblance to the secular meaning, you're going to have to say the same about its use in the Baha'i faith as well.

The world will pass away, and so will all the things whereat your hearts rejoice, or wherein ye pride yourselves before men. Cleanse the mirrors of your hearts from the dross of the world and all that is therein, that they may reflect the resplendent light of God. This, indeed, shall enable you to dispense with all save God, and to attain unto the good pleasure of your Lord, the Most Bountiful, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. We, verily, have unfolded before your eyes that which shall profit you both in this world and in the realm of faith, and which will lead you to the path of salvation. Would that ye might turn thereunto! - Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 208

[shunyadragon]

What you're saying is nonsense. Just because the word "salvation" or "saved" is being applied to a particular situation in Christian belief does not mean that the same word doesn't resemble the secular definition. Its the same word with the same meaning regardless of its application. The word "salvation" and "saved" has the same meaning in the Christian faith as it does the Baha'i faith even if salvation is obtained in different ways (though maybe not so different as some would think). So if you're going to say the Christian meaning of the word has no resemblance to the secular meaning, you're going to have to say the same about its use in the Baha'i faith as well.

No it is not the same concerning the secular world. The Baha'i Faith is a religion and uses a theistic definition of these words, tough somewhat different to the christen view, and less exclusive. The point is the secular use of the words which bare no resemblance to the theists use of the word.

Good quotes from the Baha'i writings.

[OingoBoingo]

No it is not the same concerning the secular world. The Baha'i Faith is a religion and uses a theistic definition of these words, tough somewhat different to the christen view, and less exclusive. The point is the secular use of the words which bare no resemblance to the theists use of the word.

You're wrong. They are the same words with the same meaning, just applied to different circumstances/scenarios. They mean the exact same thing. If someone throws me a life preserver after my boat goes down in the middle of the ocean, they have saved me. They are my salvation. If I believe I'm drowning in the ocean of a mundane life, followed by eternal death, and a divine being offers me an abundant and eternal life through faithfulness in him, he has saved me. He is my salvation.

Good quotes from the Baha'i writings.

Yes, I found them highly interesting.

[shunyadragon]

You're wrong. They are the same words with the same meaning, just applied to different circumstances/scenarios. They mean the exact same thing. If someone throws me a life preserver after my boat goes down in the middle of the ocean, they have saved me. They are my salvation. If I believe I'm drowning in the ocean of a mundane life, followed by eternal death, and a divine being offers me an abundant and eternal life through faithfulness in him, he has saved me. He is my salvation.
.

Well here we will have to just agree to disagree. The verb 'to save,' saved, and salvation' are used decidedly in a very different mundane context, and decidedly different from the theistic context, or the Buddhist and other Oriental context. Jews would hardly come close to Christians as what it means, and neither would Muslims from the theist perspective.

I believe it is helpful in communication to accept the differences in definitions. The separation of definitions even between the various religions and churches would prevent confusion and equivocation of meanings.

[Truthseeker]

Well here we will have to just agree to disagree. The verb 'to save,' saved, and salvation' are used decidedly in a very different mundane context, and decidedly different from the theistic context, or the Buddhist and other Oriental context. Jews would hardly come close to Christians as what it means, and neither would Muslims from the theist perspective.

I believe it is helpful in communication to accept the differences in definitions. The separation of definitions even between the various religions and churches would prevent confusion and equivocation of meanings.

Give us an example of use in the secular world, please.

[Doug Shaver]

That doesn't follow.

No, I guess it doesn't.

[shunyadragon]

Give us an example of use in the secular world, please.

Verb 'to save, saved' - "A penny saved is a penny earned." Benjamin Franklin.

"Save your pennies, and watch your dollars grow."

'salvation' - "The emergency loan was the salvation of the company."

Firstfloor used it at the beginning of thread with a heavy dose of sarcasm, meaning that there is no such thing as salvation in the spiritual sense, and we are all in the same boat together.

Second thought I believe there is a use in the secular world as well as the atheist/agnostic world. 'The future generations of humanity represent our immorality in this world and the salvation of the future of humanity. This similar to the Confucian view where 'The honor and respect of ancestors and elders insures the honor and respect of future generation, and thus the salvation of the Chinese civilization.'

I have not heard this used specifically, but it is logical considering the purpose of morals and ethics in the Confucian philosophy in the East, Zen in Japan, and Western the predominant view in the atheist/agnostic west.



"To Follow by faith alone is to follow blindly." Benjamin Franklin