Jesus is a character in all of the four major religions and a player in several others. This article will look at who he was thought to be, in many of them.
Jesus first came into religion with Christianity. In Christianity he is believed to be the son of God. Through out the books of the New Testament, the authors portrayed him as a compassionate, caring person who taught the ways of god through parables. It was taught that God sent his son on a predestined mission to die on the cross to make atonement for mans sins and let man live through him to reach heaven. It is written in the New Testament that all you have to do to get to heaven is accept Jesus Christ as your savior.
Judaism has a vastly different view of Jesus. To many Jews he was just a mad man, perhaps a witch doctor that went around healing people but had no religious ties. To some Jews he was a saint but not the son of God.
Islam believes Jesus was another prophet just like Abraham and Mohammad. They believe that religion was corrupted by early Christians who compiled the New Testament. While he was a key figure in the Islamic Religion, to Islam he was not the son of God.
To most Buddhist Jesus is a fictional character, but to some, they believe that Jesus came to India between age 8 and age 29 and studied Buddhism with the great Buddhist of the time. A good book to research the Buddhist connection is “The Jesus Mystery” by Janet Bock.
I found my God through Jesus Christ so I profess myself a Christian but it is interesting to look at how these religions look at Jesus Christ and study how each one looks at this controversial figure.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Karma - The Most Important Thing
Buddajewchristslamology is my attempt to help people better their lives through studying Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I think these religions have a lot of similarities that can help people understand life and live better lives.
At the core of my beliefs is Karma. I believe that if you practice good Karma you will live a happy life. It can be found in some form in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.
I believe that karma in Judaism is translated as The Golden Rule, in Judaism can be found in the story of Hillel and the Impudent Stranger. This story is recorded in the Talmud, the great compilation of Jewish law and lore completed about 500 CE, and concerns two of the leading rabbis of the first century BCE, Hillel and Shammai. The two were very different personalities: Shammai was strict and irascible, Hillel genial and tolerant. They also differed on many points of law, with Hillel's rulings being the more lenient. Jewish tradition honours both of them, but the law has generally followed Hillel's interpretation.
A non-Jew came to Shammai and asked the rabbi to teach him the whole Torah - the word can mean Jewish teaching as a whole or its primary source, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy) - while standing on one foot. Shammai, angry at the man's impudence, chased him away with a builder's cubit. The man then went to Hillel and asked the same question. Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it."
It can also be found in Christianity as the golden rule where it is told by Jesus, who expressed this point in a slightly different way: "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." Over the centuries, many people have compared Jesus' statement with Hillel's. Some have regarded Jesus' formulation as more "positive," in contrast to Hillel's "negative" statement. Are they the same, or is there a significant distinction to be made?
There can be no doubt that, from a logical point of view, the two statements are not the same. Hillel's statement can be rephrased to read, "Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you." In other words, each statement is the converse of the other.
In practical effect, however, the two statements are virtually identical. After all, inaction can be as "hateful" as action. If I am starving and my neighbour passes by without offering me something to eat, or if I am homeless and my neighbour does not help me find shelter, that would be hateful to me. The Golden Rule implies a social obligation to provide help to those who need it. On that Hillel and Jesus, and the weight of Jewish tradition, are in wholehearted agreement.
In Buddhism, Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause in the chain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of "volitional activities" and "action". Any action is understood as creating "seeds" in the mind that will sprout into the appropriate result when met with the right conditions. Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of samsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna.
Buddhism links karma directly to the motives behind an action. Motivation usually makes the difference between "good" and "bad" actions, but included in the motivation is also the aspect of ignorance such that a well-intended action from an ignorant mind can subsequently be interpreted as a "bad" action in the sense that it creates unpleasant results for the "actor".
And in the religion of Islam it is a lot harder to find exact passages that preach that if you do good things, good things happen and if you do bad things bad things happen. It is a religion that preaches that one should do the right things in life.
At the core of my beliefs is Karma. I believe that if you practice good Karma you will live a happy life. It can be found in some form in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.
I believe that karma in Judaism is translated as The Golden Rule, in Judaism can be found in the story of Hillel and the Impudent Stranger. This story is recorded in the Talmud, the great compilation of Jewish law and lore completed about 500 CE, and concerns two of the leading rabbis of the first century BCE, Hillel and Shammai. The two were very different personalities: Shammai was strict and irascible, Hillel genial and tolerant. They also differed on many points of law, with Hillel's rulings being the more lenient. Jewish tradition honours both of them, but the law has generally followed Hillel's interpretation.
A non-Jew came to Shammai and asked the rabbi to teach him the whole Torah - the word can mean Jewish teaching as a whole or its primary source, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy) - while standing on one foot. Shammai, angry at the man's impudence, chased him away with a builder's cubit. The man then went to Hillel and asked the same question. Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it."
It can also be found in Christianity as the golden rule where it is told by Jesus, who expressed this point in a slightly different way: "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." Over the centuries, many people have compared Jesus' statement with Hillel's. Some have regarded Jesus' formulation as more "positive," in contrast to Hillel's "negative" statement. Are they the same, or is there a significant distinction to be made?
There can be no doubt that, from a logical point of view, the two statements are not the same. Hillel's statement can be rephrased to read, "Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you." In other words, each statement is the converse of the other.
In practical effect, however, the two statements are virtually identical. After all, inaction can be as "hateful" as action. If I am starving and my neighbour passes by without offering me something to eat, or if I am homeless and my neighbour does not help me find shelter, that would be hateful to me. The Golden Rule implies a social obligation to provide help to those who need it. On that Hillel and Jesus, and the weight of Jewish tradition, are in wholehearted agreement.
In Buddhism, Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause in the chain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of "volitional activities" and "action". Any action is understood as creating "seeds" in the mind that will sprout into the appropriate result when met with the right conditions. Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of samsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna.
Buddhism links karma directly to the motives behind an action. Motivation usually makes the difference between "good" and "bad" actions, but included in the motivation is also the aspect of ignorance such that a well-intended action from an ignorant mind can subsequently be interpreted as a "bad" action in the sense that it creates unpleasant results for the "actor".
And in the religion of Islam it is a lot harder to find exact passages that preach that if you do good things, good things happen and if you do bad things bad things happen. It is a religion that preaches that one should do the right things in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)