The Salvation Paradox

[dybmh]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's an inherent paradox within the concept of Salvation.

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts? I think this is true, because all of us are individuals with our own individual talents, flaws, affinities, and aversions. It makes sense that each of us would need our own salvation to be specific to our own trials, triumphs, challenges, and successes in our own individual life stories. What works for me, what saves me, will very likely be completely different than what saves other people. It's a natural consequence of being an individual in a diverse ecosystem.

Further, if someone else saves me, and somehow does the work for me? If they somehow are able to fashion a particular key for the particular door labeled "salvation" in my heart and mind? That is not saving me. I'm still burdened with the same faults, the same aversions are impeding me. All that's been accomplished is adding a new obstacle in the form of a savior. Without the savior, I'm still stuck under my own burden whatever that burden may be.

Because of this, salvation is an inherent paradox? Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong? If not, in the act of being saved ( salvation ) the individual is, at best, trading one burden for another. They are reliant on the savior. And that reliance is itself a burden. If so, salvation is a neverending cycle of burdens which can never be completed.

Tldr? Salvation does not exist.

 

[Heyo]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's an inherent paradox within the concept of Salvation.

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts? I think this is true, because all of us are individuals with our own individual talents, flaws, affinities, and aversions. It makes sense that each of us would need our own salvation to be specific to our own trials, triumphs, challenges, and successes in our own individual life stories. What works for me, what saves me, will very likely be completely different than what saves other people. It's a natural consequence of being an individual in a diverse ecosystem.

Further, if someone else saves me, and somehow does the work for me? If they somehow are able to fashion a particular key for the particular door labeled "salvation" in my heart and mind? That is not saving me. I'm still burdened with the same faults, the same aversions are impeding me. All that's been accomplished is adding a new obstacle in the form of a savior. Without the savior, I'm still stuck under my own burden whatever that burden may be.

Because of this, salvation is an inherent paradox? Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong? If not, in the act of being saved ( salvation ) the individual is, at best, trading one burden for another. They are reliant on the savior. And that reliance is itself a burden. If so, salvation is a neverending cycle of burdens which can never be completed.

Tldr? Salvation does not exist.

Of which philosophy is salvation a concept? I see it as entirely religious (and especially Abrahamic). You need a god and its wrath to be saved from

 

[Jimmy]

Jesus saves us from eternal death says the Bible. Sounds good to me.

 

[dybmh]

Of which philosophy is salvation a concept?

I feel like it was popularized by Christianity, but the knight in shining armor is a common archetype.

I see it as entirely religious (and especially Abrahamic). You need a god and its wrath to be saved from

Yes. Using the Abrahamic construct, salvation is needed to be saved from God's wrath. Agreed. So, we need another God to save us from the first God. The point I;m trying to make is that this is a never ending cycle. What happens when God #2 gets angry? I've lost favor with my savior. Now God#1 returns and starts spanking me. Repeatedly and with extreme malice.

See what I mean? It's a never ending cycle. If I am relying on God #2, instead of myself, I'm still saddled with the same burden. There was no salvation. It's an illusion. It's a paradox. Salvation is self-defeating. Right?

If I had learned to save myself from God #1? If I had done the work? Put in the time? Then when I escape from God #1, I can be confident I can always escape from God #1 whenever I choose. That can't happen if a knight in shining armor comes to sweep me off my feet and then charges out of the dungeon. That's the difference between salvation and accomplishment, or achievement? That's the difference between salvation and graduation? Maybe that's a good word for what would preferable to salvation. Graduation?

Let's up the ante?

If I continue with this train of thought, I'm considering: what happens if God #2 kills God #1? Originally I needed saving from God #1. Now I don't. OK. Maybe that seems like a good thing? I disagree. The same burden exists... or worse. Here's why.

I am still not able to save myself if God #2 gets angry. Maybe I will never need to save myself. Maybe I will. I still have a burden. I still have the same burden. I have been threatened and potentially traumatized. God #1's wrath is awful. I'm not sure how I could convince myself rationally that God #2 would never become hostile in the same way or worse. As they say, here in America, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." And when it comes to wrath, there really isn't much difference between a God and a devil. Right? If so, the burden of potential wrath from God #2 is still highly significant and cannot be ignored rationally. If God #2 saves me from God #1, I'm still saddled with the same burden. Same form. Same function. And the magnitude could be worse. Salvation is a self-defeating paradox.

That's my reasoning using the Abrahamic construct. Thoughts? Clearer now?

 

[dybmh]

Jesus saves us from eternal death says the Bible. Sounds good to me.

The one with power to grant eternal life also has the power to remove eternal life?

 

[Jimmy]

The one with power to grant eternal life also has the power to remove eternal life?

No

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's an inherent paradox within the concept of Salvation.

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts? I think this is true, because all of us are individuals with our own individual talents, flaws, affinities, and aversions. It makes sense that each of us would need our own salvation to be specific to our own trials, triumphs, challenges, and successes in our own individual life stories. What works for me, what saves me, will very likely be completely different than what saves other people. It's a natural consequence of being an individual in a diverse ecosystem.

Further, if someone else saves me, and somehow does the work for me? If they somehow are able to fashion a particular key for the particular door labeled "salvation" in my heart and mind? That is not saving me. I'm still burdened with the same faults, the same aversions are impeding me. All that's been accomplished is adding a new obstacle in the form of a savior. Without the savior, I'm still stuck under my own burden whatever that burden may be.

Because of this, salvation is an inherent paradox? Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong? If not, in the act of being saved ( salvation ) the individual is, at best, trading one burden for another. They are reliant on the savior. And that reliance is itself a burden. If so, salvation is a neverending cycle of burdens which can never be completed.

Tldr? Salvation does not exist.

But if It's myself that I need saving from, I can hardly do that alone. I am going to need help from some other source.

Thus, I need the assistance of a Power greater than myself, to overcome my own gross defects. Without the help of that Power, the struggle to free myself from pride, self pity, and self centredness, will prove too much for me.

 

[Heyo]

I feel like it was popularized by Christianity, but the knight in shining armor is a common archetype.

The knight in shining armour is a derived phantasy, the original is the parent that saved us from harm when we were children.

Maybe that's a good word for what would preferable to salvation. Graduation?

Good choice, I'd stick with my above archetype and call it maturation. The moment we grow up and don't need a father (-figure) any more.

Salvation is a self-defeating paradox.

That's my reasoning using the Abrahamic construct. Thoughts? Clearer now?

Yes, I think I understand what you're getting at.
But that is a paradox of life. Every power you submit to, can crush you, or lift you up. That is usually society. Unfortunately living outside of society, is not doable for most of us, and when it is, that life is very hard, and you have to submit to the forces of nature.

 

[dybmh]

Every power you submit to, can crush you, or lift you up

Every power? Submission? I disagree.

It's not every power. What you wrote is only true if there is an extreme power disadvantage. Institutions often have checks and balances which limit and distribute their power such that submission to the system grants the individual more power to lift themselves and others, and to prevent being crushed by themselves and others. Haven't we argued this before?

Submission is not at all included in this. The damsel in distress is crying: "Help! Help! Help!" from the window of the tower. The door to her room is locked. She cannot escape. She is not submitting.

 

[Estro Felino]

Salvation from a theological or a philosophical point of view?
Because from a philosophical point of view, I don't think this term has been employed by many philosophers. I can be wrong...but,...

 

[Balthazzar]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's an inherent paradox within the concept of Salvation.

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts? I think this is true, because all of us are individuals with our own individual talents, flaws, affinities, and aversions. It makes sense that each of us would need our own salvation to be specific to our own trials, triumphs, challenges, and successes in our own individual life stories. What works for me, what saves me, will very likely be completely different than what saves other people. It's a natural consequence of being an individual in a diverse ecosystem.

Further, if someone else saves me, and somehow does the work for me? If they somehow are able to fashion a particular key for the particular door labeled "salvation" in my heart and mind? That is not saving me. I'm still burdened with the same faults, the same aversions are impeding me. All that's been accomplished is adding a new obstacle in the form of a savior. Without the savior, I'm still stuck under my own burden whatever that burden may be.

Because of this, salvation is an inherent paradox? Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong? If not, in the act of being saved ( salvation ) the individual is, at best, trading one burden for another. They are reliant on the savior. And that reliance is itself a burden. If so, salvation is a neverending cycle of burdens which can never be completed.

Tldr? Salvation does not exist.

I agree in part, but only because I understand myself to have specific attributes that others aren't always burdened by. What is salvation, anyway? I can look back at life and acknowledge many things that I could have done better. I could have been a better friend, a better husband, a better father, a better son, a better employee, a better everything really, but I wasn't, so maybe it's more about being better than we are present day. That would be an individualized thing and an understanding specific to each individual, so that's why I agree with part of your post. I'll never be good enough for some people. I'm the same way. My standards will differ from everyone else's, so finding like minded people becomes the quest, which is rarely an easy thing to do. The burden, I guess is to be satisfied with self and to not worry too much about it beyond that. I'm the one who must live with myself, so I simply do what I I'm able to be better than I am.

"Ferris Buellers Day Off" is ringing a bell for some reason. Maybe it's the simple things that eventually saves us. I don't know.

 

[Koldo]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's an inherent paradox within the concept of Salvation.

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts? I think this is true, because all of us are individuals with our own individual talents, flaws, affinities, and aversions. It makes sense that each of us would need our own salvation to be specific to our own trials, triumphs, challenges, and successes in our own individual life stories. What works for me, what saves me, will very likely be completely different than what saves other people. It's a natural consequence of being an individual in a diverse ecosystem.

But salvation from what? Are you talking about Christianity? If you are, what saves you is the exact same thing that saves everyone. It is a medicine for all ills.

Further, if someone else saves me, and somehow does the work for me? If they somehow are able to fashion a particular key for the particular door labeled "salvation" in my heart and mind? That is not saving me. I'm still burdened with the same faults, the same aversions are impeding me. All that's been accomplished is adding a new obstacle in the form of a savior. Without the savior, I'm still stuck under my own burden whatever that burden may be.

But why do you presume you would still be burdened with the same faults?

Because of this, salvation is an inherent paradox? Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong? If not, in the act of being saved ( salvation ) the individual is, at best, trading one burden for another. They are reliant on the savior. And that reliance is itself a burden. If so, salvation is a neverending cycle of burdens which can never be completed.

Tldr? Salvation does not exist.

Only if you want to face your reliance on the savior (God) as a burden.

 

[Augustus]

Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong?

Depends what you mean by salvation.

Soteria for the Greeks... had little or nothing to do with the afterlife; eschatological hopes, while present among the Greeks, were not normally expressed in the language of soteria. Unlike the Christian use of the word, soteria for the ancient Greeks could have a gradation of graver or less serious meanings depending on context, but almost without exception always with reference to this world rather than the next... It is therefore preferable to translate the Greek soteria instead as ‘deliverance’, ‘preservation’, ‘safety’, ‘rescue’, or similar. Nevertheless, as we shall see in this study, none of these English terms can capture the full range of meanings of the Greek notion of soteria, and one translation or another may be more suitable depending on context...

the word ‘saviour’ was by no means a preserve of the gods; the Greeks also used it of human beings who performed a major or lesser service.33 Some of these individuals were so called momentarily in a sudden outburst of gratitude without any implication of cultic worship, whereas others—especially Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors—were given the title permanently in cult and worship...
According to [certain] scholars, the gods of Mysteries were often called Soter, and the main purpose of initiation was to attain soteria after death. This was achieved by sharing the experience of the divine ‘saviour’—especially Dionysus, Osiris, and Attis—who had himself died but risen again. Influential as they have been on early interpretations of ancient mystery cults,11 these notions are not borne out in the ancient sources, and they have been criticized by Burkert in Ancient Mystery Cults (1987), who argued against the other-worldly character of Greek Mysteries and the universality of the ‘dying and rising god’.12

…

Even more striking is the near-absence of the language of soteria for referring to a blessed afterlife.15 Despite the eschatological dimension of many mystery cults just mentioned, their post-mortem benefits were always expressed in terms other than soteria, and there was no consistent language with which to express the idea of a blessed afterlife in ancient Greek. ..

By contrast to the Christian, eschatological notion of ‘salvation’ which did not develop until much later, soteria to the Greeks was strikingly this-worldly in nature. ‘Saviour’ gods and soteria in ancient Greece were almost without exception always concerned with immediate help, protection, deliverance, and well-being in this life.8 From what we have seen, soteria normally involved well-defined and short-term goals; it lacked permanence and had to be secured from the gods time and again. The appeal of ‘saviour’ gods lies in fact not in any miraculous power on their part to transform life or death once and for all, but precisely in their ability to respond to the most basic and personal needs of worshippers in everyday situ- ations: good health, physical survival, economic security, safety on land and at sea, the well-being of crops and livestock, safe return home, and so on...

So deeply ingrained is the earthly character of Greek soteria that, even when the concept was adopted and adapted in early Christianity, well-being in the here-and-now remained part and parcel of the Christian notion of soteria.

Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece - TSF Jim

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts?

It's a sophomoric argument.

If I'm drowning, I had better grab the life ring buoy and swim to safety, but I might also give a shout-out to the person who provided the life preserver.

 

[wellwisher]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's an inherent paradox within the concept of Salvation.

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts? I think this is true, because all of us are individuals with our own individual talents, flaws, affinities, and aversions. It makes sense that each of us would need our own salvation to be specific to our own trials, triumphs, challenges, and successes in our own individual life stories. What works for me, what saves me, will very likely be completely different than what saves other people. It's a natural consequence of being an individual in a diverse ecosystem.

Further, if someone else saves me, and somehow does the work for me? If they somehow are able to fashion a particular key for the particular door labeled "salvation" in my heart and mind? That is not saving me. I'm still burdened with the same faults, the same aversions are impeding me. All that's been accomplished is adding a new obstacle in the form of a savior. Without the savior, I'm still stuck under my own burden whatever that burden may be.

Because of this, salvation is an inherent paradox? Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong? If not, in the act of being saved ( salvation ) the individual is, at best, trading one burden for another. They are reliant on the savior. And that reliance is itself a burden. If so, salvation is a neverending cycle of burdens which can never be completed.

Tldr? Salvation does not exist.

Salvation is connected to will and choice, with will and choice not used to boost the ego, but to funnel oneself to follow a path to salvation. Will and choice can take either path.

The human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and the ego. The inner self is older and is connected to the operating system of the natural human brain. Our inner self has evolved from the first genetic humans, over a million years ago to the present. All animals have an inner self including the human animal. In the case of a lion, it is the inner self that makes a lion conscious and stay true to its innate conscious nature as a lion. The human inner self is within our human DNA; natural human propensities.

The ego center is much newer and consolidated with the rise of civilization. Only humans have an ego. Adam and Eve symbolized the first male and female with both centers; first modern humans. That symbolism is not about DNA but about the ego addendum to human consciousness. This secondary POV of the ego can separate us from the inner self. Salvation is about reconnecting to the inner self; natural paradise.

The knowledge within the inner self is innate knowledge; natural human instinct. The new born baby knows to cry to get it's needs met. This is from the inner self. The inner self is much more obvious in smaller children before their ego develops too much. It is that spontaneous and imaginative side of children. It may appear as their imaginary friend; second center. By about the time we start school, external knowledge and peer pressure molds the ego and it tries to avoid the things of being a baby; repress the inner self. The ego's knowledge is more extroverted and is learned from the outside via culture. Due to the ego's will and choice, and peer pressure these, two centers are not always on the same page.

Salvation is about reconnecting to the inner self or inner man as Jesus and Buddha both described it. Less you become as children was another clue. The child has that natural and spontaneous joy of life. That would be paradise if you had that as an adult. Those who were able to do that, shared their maps with others, to make their quest easier. Being an adult ego has so much more pressure.

The ego, by learning almost exclusively from the outside world, may not know what is coming from their own inner self, which is why other paths to salvation comes to them from the outside world, via those who found it; Prophets. The ego may not trust its own instincts, but prefers safety in numbers and an external consensus. If one cannot do it alone, then groups are available to help the ego, as it learns to walk toward salvation via paths laid down by the great prophets of old.

But some can use will and choice, to reconnect to their own inner self. The inner self is a living spirit and can show you the way back to salvation; spirit of truth. The symbols of religion help to place the ego in the proper state of mind and hierarchy, since the inner self can control the main frame parts of the brain and reveal hidden human potential.

 

[metis]

Only humans have an ego.

It's the superego that reflects morality, but we know that is at least partially driven by instinct as all species have a "pecking order" of sorts.

 

[dybmh]

But salvation from what? Are you talking about Christianity? If you are, what saves you is the exact same thing that saves everyone. It is a medicine for all ills.

Please see this post up-thread: The Salvation Paradox

 

[dybmh]

Depends

Classic. Love-it. It's the nearly universal answer to all of life's big questions.

 

[dybmh]

If I'm drowning, I had better grab the life ring buoy and swim to safety, but I might also give a shout-out to the person who provided the life preserver.

That example is in support of my thesis.

 

[dybmh]

Salvation is about reconnecting to the inner self or inner man as Jesus and Buddha both described it.

That isn't the salvation that is described in the OP. This is an individual effecting their own salvation. The OP refers to reliance on a third-party.

In this scenario there are 3 individual and distinct parties:

1. Oppressor
2. Victim
3. Savior