by Robert W. McDonald

Created on: November 23, 2009

Those professing to adhere to the "fundamental" tenets of Christianity seem to get some perverse sense of personal gratification by constantly reminding those of us who do not accept the core argument of their worldview, which is that the only "way" to personal "salvation" is Jesus of Nazareth. This essay will directly challenge that contention.

Since we can say that "salvation" is the act of being "saved" or "rescued" from something, it seems that the first question to arise is "salvation from what?"

The answer most frequently given is our "sins." This usually means "the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden" or "original sin," which is something that everyone is born with by virtue of the fact that everyone is a descendent of the first man and woman.

This seems to be a valid argument until we pause to consider its inherent weakness: that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that Adam and Eve were not real and that the Garden of Eden is no more (or less) real than the Elysian Fields of the Classical Greeks. In other words, no Adam equals no original sin and thus no requirement for "salvation."

We can also apply the same argument to another claim from the fundamental believers that, since Christianity is the "revealed" will of God, only Christianity can provide the answers regarding what is acceptable in the eyes of God. This argument also collapses from its own unsoundness.

If Christianity is the only "true" word of God, then other beliefs would not be able to arrive at identical principles because they would, by definition, lack a suitable philosophical foundation on which to build. When Jesus of Nazareth asked for his definition of the greatest commandment, he replied that the "greatest commandment" was the "love one another" or "do unto others." If this was the greatest commandment to have been revealed by God, then it could not arise from an unbeliever. However, since this same principle was known to the followers of the Buddha and to Confucius, both of whom lived 500 years prior to Jesus of Nazareth, they must have arrived at it without having it revealed to them. Strike two.

The contention that salvation is the exclusive franchise of Jesus of Nazareth not only reaches the heights of arrogance, it also neglects to consider the very real problem of the supposed eternal fate of those that lived and died before Jesus arrived on the scene.

Before, and even since, the life of Jesus there were millions upon millions that died without knowing (or caring) who Jesus of Nazareth was or was supposed to be. Since there were undoubtedly many who lived virtuously within the contexts of their own faiths, what was their fate? Since that question was never addressed in the Christian scripture, are we to assume that a supposedly "merciful" God is simply ignoring this "unsaved" multitude. If the answer is "yes," then the God of mercy isn't very merciful. If the answer is instead "no," then it must be the case that these peoples' "salvation" was assured via some other intermediation which would, in turn, invalidate the position that belief in the role Jesus of Nazareth is a precondition of "salvation."

Given that their position of the "necessity" of Jesus of Nazareth in the process of "salvation" rests upon an unsound foundation, those insisting that others adhere to such doctrinal "purity" might be well-served by recalling the "... judge not..." portion of the scriptures that they purport to hold dear.

Learn more about this author, Robert W. McDonald.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.