Sounds to me like Jesus knew what he was doing, igniting the world with his message. And yet, I can't help reflect on how distorted that message has become in so many contexts. I guess it is a reflection of the way this world of samsara works. Similarly, in Buddhism, I was reading comments by the Dalai Lama about how the world of samsara has crept in. He mentioned, for example, hpw elaborate hats have evolved for lamas in different (competing) traditions, and how there is some gender bias in the lama hierarchy. Still, if you're starving, and find a piece of food which is a little bit dirty, it doesn't mean that the food won't nourish you.
The parallel passage in Luke 12:49 (New American Standard) reads: "I have come to cast fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled." Jesus also says he is bursting to release the baptism (of the Holy Spirit) onto the world. But these gifts cannot come until he is sacrificed. That is, until God has personally taken care of your spiritual debt (overcome your bad karma with his good karma).
I suppose that idea is okay, just as long as you don't take it to mean that people are not accountable for their conduct provided they "believe in Jesus."
One has the power to transform negative karma. For example, if a child grows up in a violent houseold, when the child grows up he may become violent himself. This is the karmic fruit. If the child has a spiritual transformation and chooses not to water those karmic seeds, then the cycle of samsara is broken. The negative karma has been transformed. If this transformation occured within the context of Chritianity, one might say that it was Jesus who removed the negative karma. However, if the young man accepts Jesus, but continues to act violently, then he is still producing negative karma, so in what sense has that negative karma been overcome? When I was growing up, I had the sense that since Jesus died for my sins, I pretty much had a guarantee that I would get into heaven no matter what I did. But how can that be right? In some Christian traditions people must undergo suffering to atone for their sins before getting into heaven, but that is not very different from the karmic viewpoint. As I see one of the standard interpretations of this doctrine, Jesus erases the guilt but not the consequences. How can that be right? Throughout the Gospels Jesus emphasizes right conduct, actions which produce positive karma. I like putting it that way a lot better: it is our reponsibility to bring more positive karma into the world.
3 comments:
Sounds to me like Jesus knew what he was doing, igniting the world with his message. And yet, I can't help reflect on how distorted that message has become in so many contexts. I guess it is a reflection of the way this world of samsara works. Similarly, in Buddhism, I was reading comments by the Dalai Lama about how the world of samsara has crept in. He mentioned, for example, hpw elaborate hats have evolved for lamas in different (competing) traditions, and how there is some gender bias in the lama hierarchy. Still, if you're starving, and find a piece of food which is a little bit dirty, it doesn't mean that the food won't nourish you.
The parallel passage in Luke 12:49 (New American
Standard) reads: "I have come to cast fire on the
earth, and how I wish it were already kindled."
Jesus also says he is bursting to release the baptism
(of the Holy Spirit) onto the world.
But these gifts cannot come until he is sacrificed.
That is, until God has personally taken care of your
spiritual debt (overcome your bad karma with his good karma).
I suppose that idea is okay, just as long as you don't take it to mean that people are not accountable for their conduct provided they "believe in Jesus."
One has the power to transform negative karma. For example, if a child grows up in a violent houseold, when the child grows up he may become violent himself. This is the karmic fruit. If the child has a spiritual transformation and chooses not to water those karmic seeds, then the cycle of samsara is broken. The negative karma has been transformed. If this transformation occured within the context of Chritianity, one might say that it was Jesus who removed the negative karma. However, if the young man accepts Jesus, but continues to act violently, then he is still producing negative karma, so in what sense has that negative karma been overcome? When I was growing up, I had the sense that since Jesus died for my sins, I pretty much had a guarantee that I would get into heaven no matter what I did. But how can that be right? In some Christian traditions people must undergo suffering to atone for their sins before getting into heaven, but that is not very different from the karmic viewpoint. As I see one of the standard interpretations of this doctrine, Jesus erases the guilt but not the consequences. How can that be right? Throughout the Gospels Jesus emphasizes right conduct, actions which produce positive karma. I like putting it that way a lot better: it is our reponsibility to bring more positive karma into the world.
Post a Comment