Dogma of Salvation

January 23, 2006

To enlarge upon what we have said before, let us comment that given the nature of the dogma of salvation, it is of course accompanied by a state of non-salvation or damnation. And just as salvation does not actually exist, nor is there any reason why it should, so damnation does not actually exist, nor is there any reason why it should. With this "in mind" let us discuss some of the purposes that a concept of damnation fulfills, primarily a form of peer group pressure that adds to its weight not only condemnation on a social level, but an eternity of suffering. It also excuses the peer group from any error in punishing those perceived as damned.

Of course this perception is invalid and we assure you that karma operates in all things and needs no concept of damnation in order to seek balance. By defining unwanted behavior as offensive, not only to the peer group, but to the single deity, it is possible for one set of "clergy" to enforce behavior on all aspects of society. Where there are multiple gods and goddesses involved, the possibility of damnation tends to diminish sharply. One may not be favored by a particular god, but there is always someone in the deistic throng who may be successfully appealed to.

By enforcing a single code with the reward of salvation or the punishment of damnation attached to that code, it becomes extremely difficult for fragments involved in these peer group dynamics to be able to break away without in fact embracing all negative impressions about themselves. There have been many fragments who having earned the enmity of their peers, embraced their "evil" and boasted of the extremity of their damnation, which is of course another form of endorsement of that philosophy.

We would think that in many instances, it will be worthwhile for those concerned to assess their commitment to the notions of salvation and damnation in terms of peer group pressure, for through this understanding a much greater comprehension of societal dynamics may be brought to bear in the life without contributing to self condemnation, without which the concept of damnation cannot in fact survive, nor for that matter can the concept of salvation. We have said before but we will reiterate: the concept of sin originally borrowed from the Greeks does not mean "error or fault of bad behavior", it means "to lose one's way", not morally but physically, and so in that sense the early concept of sin as introduced in the second century followed the Greek or even Taoist concept of a way from which one may become lost.

The worst that sin originally implied was confusion, but combined with Judaic "legalisms" in the space of a century, lost took on a moral connotation, not in fact a physical one, and as a result the whole understanding of orthodox and heterodox theology entered the patchwork nature of early Christianity. Because the concept of error and redemption appealed to so many, and because it conveyed a great deal of authority to those who were leading the early groups of "followers", it soon became a focal point of the teaching although it had very little to do with anything that the Old King Jesus taught, either before or after the manifestation of the Infinite Soul. By making it possible to propose damnation for those who were unsupportive of the Faith, and holding out salvation to those who conformed to its rules the teaching picked up all manner of "converts" who found this legalistic approach engaging and relatively easy to accommodate, in that behavior rather than comprehension was uppermost in the standards presented as intrinsic to belief.

Although this is not of course in any way associated with what the Old King or for that matter the Infinite Soul taught, we are deeply aware that on may levels there is a continuing belief that there is a kind of key to behaving in a way worthy of salvation and once that behavior is mastered, salvation is assured, but if that behavior falters or doubts ensue the price for such tergiversation would be an eternity of endless and physical suffering -- not easily accomplished when the fragment no longer has a body (hahaha). That is not to say that some ardently believing fragments will not create an astral heaven or an astral hell upon their exit either, but once it has served its purpose the construct which is just a construct, will fade and the fragment will get on with the business of the Astral Review.

Many fragments reach a point towards the ends of their physical lives when they tend to feel "better safe than sorry" and go through not only conversion but redemption with the assumption that this will somehow mitigate what they fear may be the errors of their lives. Such belief assumes such a thing as an error in a life and that "saying you're sorry" cancels it out. If a fragment has created karma in a life the fragment will burn it in another. If a fragment has not created karma but would like to make amends for the sake of balance, the fragment will make aments. Last minute recanting of actual activity will not in fact reduce karma or the desire for amends.

Incidentally although we say this frequently, we will again repeat there is no such thing as acts that are inherently good or acts that are inherently bad, there are acts and consequences of acts. Where there is karma it will be burned, where there amends to be made, they will be made by the choice of the fragments and no external "referee". It is typical of Young Soul promulgated religions to approach religion and all things with a stick and a carrot. Of course in terms of Christian theology the stick is the threat of hell and the carrot is the promise of heaven, but of course these mythological places have no validity on the physical plane and none off it, either. While we understand the appeal inherent as well as the "nayh-nayh" value in adding these bludgeons to peer group pressure, we also understand that in compelling any to conform to demands, beyond the developments of culture within personality feeds Chief Feature more than any aspect of overleaves and by creating a delirium of fear which it then purports to eliminate, a fatal psychological spiral ensues which tends to be alienating and disruptive to any form of intimacy including self intimacy for all the fragments endorsing it.