People often question what there is in Christianity that is not in other religions since many of the moral teachings are very similar and some even pre-date the birth of Christ. This is missing the point. What there is in Christianity that is nowhere else is Christ himself. The actual person of Christ who through his crucifixion and resurrection transformed the whole world, even those parts of it that had no conscious knowledge of him. He changed the spiritual goal fundamentally, opening up the Kingdom of Heaven to all who accepted him whereas before there were only states analogous to Limbo, Hades, Sheol, Bardo and the like for most souls with Nirvana as a possibility for those who were able to detach themselves completely from identification with their created selves. But the new reality of Heaven (new as far as human beings were concerned) meant that the fallen self could now be redeemed and transformed into a being of light. For Heaven involves the union of spirit and matter instead of their separation. It's a marriage not a divorce.
Regarding teachings of love that may have existed before the time of Christ, I think we can see these as analogous to the twilight that appears at dawn just before the rising of the sun. Prior to the actual Incarnation the spirit of Christ will have begun to permeate the higher worlds, affecting all those able to respond to it on that level. Thus, the teachings of Christ will have begun to be established in the world. A similar thing happened after Christ's death and means that all spiritual forms in the world that were open to it, whether ostensibly Christian or not, will have begun to be influenced by what we can call the Universal or Cosmic Christ. These forms and those that followed them may not know Christ the earthly man but they will know his spiritual presence which explains how non-Christians can be saved. They don't have to know Jesus the human being if, through their religion, they can respond to Christ the spiritual being. Christianity is the religion in which Christ is most fully present but surely you did not think he could not manifest himself and be present as a spiritual force and influence in other religions? He is primarily a spiritual being and as such can be present everywhere to those who are open to him. Such people may not know him by the name Jesus Christ but they can know his spiritual presence and that is what really counts.
This is my belief. I know many Christians won't like it because it says that Christ is present in religions other than Christianity, even though he is most present in Christianity and those who are born in the West should certainly seek their spiritual nourishment at source. And non-Christians won't like it because it puts Christ at the head of the spiritual table. He is the host at the feast to which we are all invited as honoured guests. But consider the matter like this. If Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and he is, then he is the sun towards which all life forms must turn their face if they are to receive spiritual light and warmth.
15 comments:
Hi William,.
Here is some more info about this topic that you might enjoy:
https://theguidespeaks.com/keywords-from-pathwork-guide/plan-of-salvation/
Morgan.
I have to say, Morgan, that normally I am not very keen on that kind of thing but this really does have the ring of truth to it. Thanks for the link. It even echoes the title of my new book Earth is a School!
You seem to say that, before Christ, even admirable people can only go to Limbo/Hades/etc.
Do Christians go to heaven because of this belief?
PS. I inform you as a Buddhist that your conception of nibbana as "detachment from created selves" is wrong. The correct term for this is emptiness release. There are those with emptiness release, but have not yet been released from all bondage (nibbana).
"What there is in Christianity that is nowhere else is Christ himself."
Not good enough. "What is there in Buddhism that is nowhere else is Buddha himself." "What is there in Judaism that is nowhere else is Rabbi Akiva himself." "What is there in Islam that is nowhere else is Mohammed himself." And?
The reality is that what is in Christianity that is nowhere else is a bunch of goyim who are Zionist to the point of their own destruction. That is unique to Christianity, because you don't see it in the other goy Abrahamic religion of Islam, and obviously don't see it in any non-Abrahamic religions.
"He is primarily a spiritual being and as such can be present everywhere to those who are open to him. Such people may not know him by the name Jesus Christ but they can know his spiritual presence and that is what really counts."
I can see perhaps the Marcionite or Apellean Christ or Chrestos in that way, but not the Jewish Christ of Catholicism and Protestantism. Because the Marcionite/Apellean Christ is a higher God busting in on the creation of the lower jewish god to save people from him and his desire to reincarnate them eternally in a world of torment. Therefore he would be present in some way to all and perhaps even reveal himself by other names in other civilizations (Amida Bu in Japan, for instance). But the jewish version of Christ would be a tyrant as "Orthodoxy" depicts him because he would be the so-called jewish "messiah" who is to smash the gentiles with a rod of iron, and would be a mere trick to gentiles as the Catholicized Paul says "until the fulfness of the gentiles is brought in" (that is until the maximum number of suckers falls for a Zionistic jew controlled religion that subjugates all their politics to the whims of the jews and the fake state of Israel).
It is clearly extremely difficult for modern people, even as a thought experiment, to comprehend that the work of Jesus Christ was primarily (but not exclusively) directed as the potentially-next and eternal world of Heaven; and not at this temporary world of entropic decay.
That this mortal world is transformed in meaning by the infinite context of the next - but that this worldly transformation is secondary, not primary.
Somehow, modern Man can't raise his eyes from the exclusive fixation upon this world. To the point that he cannot even perceive the clear difference between Christian Heaven and its implications on the one hand, and the qualitatively different implications of the after-lives of other religions. All get lumped together, and for Christians to insist upon the distinctive implications of Christian belief is seen as merely splitting hairs, or sheer arrogance.
One would have supposed these would simply be acknowledged as obvious differences - and the discussion would then be about which one is true and which is wanted. But instead the realities and differences are mostly denied, and the discussion does not even move on to considering matters of truth or desirability.
BSRK and jorgen, I don't want to argue with you about this other than to say to you BSRK that I do understand what Nirvana is. The terms used to describe it may differ but it is what I said it is. I've gone into the differences between what the Buddha taught and what Christ taught many times so I won't do so here.
And jorgen, you need to forget about this Christ and that Christ as he may be intellectually defined by this group or that one and meditate in your heart on the reality of what Christ is and what he means to you as an individual soul.
Hi,
I find your habit of deleting my posts when the stakes get real to be really blameworthy.
I only delete them when I feel they don't add to the conversation. We could have an argument about Buddhism and Christianity until the cows come home but what's the point? I don't mean to be rude and I appreciate the fact that you as a Buddhist read what is a Christian, albeit an unorthodox Christian, blog. But my belief that the Buddha spoke from the human level, even if the highest human level, while Christ was a revelation from God is fundamental. I regard the Buddha as supreme from the human point of view and I bow down to him as my superior in every way. But Christ brought something new which I have defined as the redemption of the human self, the self that the Buddha left behind.
Anyhow I apologise if I have offended you. It was not intentional. I do appreciate your comments.
> I only delete them when I feel they don't add to the conversation
I was responding directly to Bruce Charlton's comment on the different kinds of conceptions about heaven, making a statement that was directly verifiable in the here & now.
If a certain kind of conception about heaven leads to good qualities, and another kind of conception about heaven leads to bad qualities - surely this is pertinent to the redemption of the human self, or any other good goal.
> We could have an argument about Buddhism and Christianity until the cows come home but what's the point?
I stayed away from the realm of argumentation and stuck to what's verifiable.
> I don't mean to be rude and I appreciate the fact that you as a Buddhist read what is a
> Christian, albeit an unorthodox Christian, blog. But my belief that the Buddha spoke from
> the human level, even if the highest human level, while Christ was a revelation from God
> is fundamental. I regard the Buddha as supreme from the human point of view and I bow
> down to him as my superior in every way. But Christ brought something new which I have
> defined as the redemption of the human self, the self that the Buddha left behind.
Your action revealed you as one who with base motives. Namely, you wanted an evil spirituality to move along unchecked, simply because "it was a spiritualty on your side."
I will leave this comment and let people make their own judgment about 'base motives'.
Thank you, quite brilliant.
Thanks Amadeus.
Hi William,
I do believe you are Bruce Charlton and vice versa and I hope you keep this message up for all to see. At least that way, I will be able to validate whether I am insane or not. Because if you are not one and the same, then I am sure you are going to get lots of long-term readers telling me I am insane for suggesting such a thing.
Thank you in advance.
Kirstie.
Kirstie, you are going to make me moderate the comments which i have tried to avoid doing. Is there any point in asking you to comment seriously or not at all? Bruce and I are different people as far as I know.
Post a Comment