|
NOTE:
This is an excerpt from the book, Beyond
Religious Conflict.
Introduction
We probably all had certain
defining issues that followed us throughout our childhood and impacted
us in profound ways. For me, one such issue was religious conflict.
My parents were not religious, so we hardly ever went to church. Yet
I had Bible study in school, and I still remember the utter shock
of learning how and by whom Christ was killed. Even at the tender
age of 8, it was clear to me that Christ was killed by closed-minded
religious people. I was stunned by the fact that these people believed
in the Old Testament, which states, “Thou shalt not kill.”
I was equally shocked when I later learned about the Crusades. How
could two groups of religious people kill each other in the name of
the same God? I didn’t know much about Islam, but I knew enough
about Christianity to wonder how Christians could have used the teachings
of Christ to justify such killing. An even greater shock was learning
about the Inquisition. How could a Christian church use such measures
to torture and kill its members?
Although I had no one to talk to about these questions, they kept
haunting me throughout my childhood and teenage years. In my late
teens I realized that I am a deeply spiritual person, and the study
and practice of spirituality became the main focus of my life. As
I studied a variety of spiritual teachings, I began to realize that
religious conflict and warfare is one of the main factors behind all
human conflict. Almost any war involves a clash between belief systems—even
if they are not religious in nature. Obviously, the topic of religious
warfare has become even more poignant after the 2001 terrorist attacks
and the war in Iraq. One sometimes wonder if we are seeing the beginning
of a process that will eventually lead to a re-enactment of the Crusades,
causing a large-scale war between Christian and Muslim nations?
After pondering this question, I realized that there are virtually
no books that deal directly and openly with the topic of religious
conflict. I also realized why, namely that many people are afraid
to tackle the issue. They feel intimidated by the prospect of having
to challenge people with very strong beliefs in the superiority and
infallibility of their particular religion.
In pondering the long history of religious conflict, and the intensity
of the emotions involved, I realized that it was impossible to say
anything that would not offend someone. My conclusion was that we
human beings seem utterly incapable of dealing with the topic of religious
conflict in a way that doesn’t generate more conflict. It became
clear to me that writing a “normal” book about religious
conflict had little chance of making a difference. I saw an obvious
need for an entirely different approach to the problem. If we human
beings have not been able to resolve the issue of religious conflict
on our own, we truly need help from above. So why not consider what
a spiritual master might contribute to the debate?
Given that Christianity has generated a fair share of conflicts, Jesus
was an obvious choice. Therefore, this book is a conversation between
myself and Jesus, where I ask questions and he answers. I am fully
aware that some readers will instantly reject this approach. Yet I
am hoping that others will see it as an innovative way to tackle an
age-old problem. Incidentally, the very people who are open to the
approach taken in this book just might be the only people who have
the potential to remove religious conflict from this planet. So let
us move into an unusual conversation and see what happens.
Chapter 1
Who Would Start a Religious War?
Kim: Jesus, I
don’t mean any offense, but the statistics don’t look
very good. We have a long list of major religious wars or atrocities
involving Christians, such as the Crusades, the massacre of the
Cathars, the Inquisition and several wars between Catholics and
Protestants, one of them lasting a hundred years. We also have a
lot of ongoing conflicts that have led to the killing of many people
in the name of Christ. If you listen to those who don’t like
Christianity, as many as 17 million people have been killed by Christians,
and even Christians will admit that it is a substantial number.
How do you feel about people being killed in your name?
Jesus: Are you implying
that I should feel worse about people being killed in the name of
Christianity than I should feel about people being killed for other
reasons?
Well, yes. Isn’t
it logical that as the founder of the Christian religion you would
feel worse about someone being killed in your name?
Why?
Why? Well, I
assume that since you told us to turn the other cheek, you would
feel badly about someone killing people in your name. I assume you
might feel somewhat responsible for having started a religion that
has turned out to be one of the most violent religions in recorded
history. And I assume you would feel badly about people being killed
in the name of Christianity because it seems so unnecessary.
That was a lot of assumptions.
You assume I founded the religion of Christianity. You assume I started
a fear-based religion, which found it necessary to use violence in
a desperate attempt to kill the fear. You assume I feel responsible
for the actions of human beings and that I feel especially responsible
for the actions of those who use my name yet don’t internalize
my teachings. And you assume that people have been killed in my name
and have been killed by true Christians. Your assumptions are understandable
from a human viewpoint, but I hope I can help you see that they are
not logical.
Now wait a minute,
these are perfectly reasonable assumptions, shared by an awful lot
of people including many Christians. I don’t think you can
just push them aside by saying they are not logical.
I have no intention of
pushing them aside. My intention is to help you reach a higher understanding
of the cause of religious conflict, and if you are willing to open
your mind to this higher understanding, you will see why your assumptions
are not logical. I realize they seem logical with your present level
of understanding, but that is why the Bible stresses the need for
a higher understanding, “With all thy getting, get understanding”
(Proverbs 4:7).
I don’t
see how any higher understanding can explain away the fact that
millions of people have been killed by Christians!
Again, I don’t intend
to explain away anything. But why are we having this conversation?
Are you talking to me because you want me to confirm your present
opinions, or are you open to the possibility that I could give you
a higher understanding that might cause you to revise those opinions?
If you only want to have your present opinions confirmed – as
most people do – then I simply cannot help you. I am a spiritual
teacher, and I have an uncompromising allegiance to truth—which
is a diplomatic way of saying that I will not compromise truth in
order to conform to human opinions. So do you want confirmation or
do you want understanding?
Okay, I will
come down from my soapbox, because I am really curious to see what
you have up your sleeve. So please help me understand the cause
of religious conflict.
I would like to begin by
asking you to consider the following statement:
And the King shall
answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto me. (Matthew 25:40)
This statement was meant
to illustrate how I feel when one human being hurts another. In other
words, if you hurt any other human being, I will feel their pain and
suffering. Therefore, what you do to another human being, you are
truly doing to me. What do you think this means?
I don’t
know, I can’t even imagine how you could possibly feel the
pain and suffering of every human being on this planet. That must
be a rather unpleasant experience.
Pleasant or unpleasant,
the important point here is that you cannot imagine being able to
feel that what is being done to other people is also being done to
yourself. Obviously, this is one of the major causes of all conflict,
but let us put that aside for now.
I would like to focus on the question of what it would take for a
human being to be able to feel the suffering of others? What would
it take for you to realize that when you hurt others, you are hurting
yourself?
Well, I would
obviously have to have a different sense of awareness than I have
right now.
That is an honest –
and correct – answer. Almost every religion on this planet talks
about the possibility that human souls can ascend to a higher realm
and reach a state of immortality. Most religions also state that there
are a number of immortal beings in this higher realm—however
they choose to describe this realm. Now, could you see beings in a
higher realm engage in the same kinds of conflicts and petty squabbles
in which human beings engage?
No. I have always
thought that in Heaven there couldn’t be wars and other human
atrocities.
So you would agree that
there are no religious wars in Heaven?
That sounds reasonable.
Good, so before a soul
can ascend to Heaven, it somehow has to rise above human conflict,
including religious conflict. Does that sound reasonable?
It does.
So how did we, who have
already ascended to Heaven, rise above human conflict?
I have no idea.
That’s an honest
answer, and it answers the question. In your current state of consciousness,
in your current sense of awareness, you cannot see how to overcome
conflict. The reason is that you do not feel a sense of oneness with
other people; you feel separated from others. Do you agree?
I had never thought
about it that way, but I have to say it sounds reasonable.
Does that mean you agree,
or are you just making an excuse for not really thinking about what
I am saying?
Okay, I do agree
that my current state of consciousness has not allowed me to escape
all human conflict and that I do feel separated from most other
people.
So wouldn’t it follow
logically that before you can ascend to Heaven, you have to transcend
your current state of consciousness, meaning that you have to overcome
the sense of separation? You need to rise to a state of consciousness
in which you feel one with all life, and therefore you realize that
what is done to other human beings is also done to you. In other words,
when you harm another human being, you are actually harming yourself,
and that is the real reason you should do unto others what you want
them to do to you. My point being that this statement of mine was
not some imperial command given by a hellfire and brimstone preacher.
I was simply pointing out what is enlightened self-interest—enlightened
being the operative word.
Well, yes, that’s
a very clever argument. What’s that got to do with my original
question concerning how you feel about people being killed in your
name?
My reason for taking you
on what seems like a detour is to show you that, as an ascended being,
I have attained a sense of oneness with all life. Therefore, any time
a human being is killed, I consider it a tragedy. Every human being
is one of my brothers or sisters. The person was alive because God
wanted that soul to have the opportunity to be in embodiment on Earth.
When a person is killed, the opportunity is wasted, and that is a
loss, not only for the individual but for the whole. And because I
see myself as one with that whole, it is also a loss for me. My point
being that it is always a loss for me when a person is killed. It
makes no difference whether the person was killed for this or that
reason. The loss is always immeasurable because each soul is a unique
individual and each life represents a unique opportunity.
I wanted to show you this because I am hoping to help you see that
all killing is wrong in the eyes of God. That is why virtually every
spiritual teaching on this planet denounces killing. I am also hoping
to help you see that, as a spiritual being, I do not discriminate
based on human opinions and judgments. In reality, by assuming that
I would feel differently based on why someone was killed, you are
implying that some forms of killing are worse than others. The logical
consequence of that line of reasoning is that some forms of killing
are not as bad. And when you reason like that, it is only a matter
of degree before you start believing that under certain circumstances
killing is acceptable. The brutal fact is that the very moment you
believe that under certain circumstances killing is an acceptable
way to resolve human conflict, at that moment you have set the stage
for religious war—and any other type of war for that matter.
Do you see my point?
I do, and I am
embarrassed that I didn’t see that before.
There is no need to be
embarrassed when you realize that you had a limited understanding.
On the contrary, admitting that you have a limited understanding opens
your mind to a higher understanding, and that is the driving force
behind all human progress. What is truly embarrassing – and
tragic – is when human beings refuse to admit that they have
a limited understanding, and therefore they refuse to reach for a
higher understanding. As I hope to show you later, this is another
major cause of religious conflict.
Now let us move on to your next assumption. You were assuming that
people have actually been killed by Christians and that they have
been killed in my name...
Now, hold it
one minute! I was just beginning to believe that you made sense,
and then you pull this one on me. This is not an assumption—it
is simply historical fact!
Is it? So how do you define
a Christian?
How do I define
a Christian? Well, obviously it is a person who is a member of a
Christian church.
I thought that was the
problem. You are resorting to the common human tendency of defending
one assumption by using another assumption—which easily leads
people to build an entire belief system that is based exclusively
on assumptions and has no bearing in truth.
You are making the assumption that by becoming a member of a church
that bears my name, a person will automatically become one of my followers.
And you are saying
that is not true?
Most certainly! This is
one of the most common mistakes made by both religious and nonreligious
people. Religious people think that by obtaining membership in a particular
religion, they have bought their salvation. And nonreligious people
think they can blame the actions of the so-called followers on the
founder of the religion. So everything done by so-called Christians
is supposedly my fault, and if only I had stayed away from this planet,
humankind would have been engaged in a group hug for the past 2,000
years.
Well, I will
agree that even if you had not come to Earth, people would have
found plenty of other things to fight about.
They would, but that obviously
is no excuse for killing someone in the name of Christianity. So let
us consider how a religion based on the principle of turning the other
cheek became violent. Let me begin by pointing out that there are
several thousand individual Christian churches and sects. They have
vastly different doctrines and interpretations of the spiritual teachings
they believe I gave. In many cases, these doctrines and interpretations
are mutually exclusive, and many of the people you call Christians
seriously believe that all other so-called Christians are not true
believers and will go to Hell. I assume you have observed this phenomenon?
I have, and it
always shocked me a bit. I can understand some atheists or agnostics
who reason that since so many Christian churches have opposing doctrines,
they couldn’t all be right, so maybe none of them are right.
And that is not necessarily
an unworkable hypothesis, as long as you don’t make the assumption
that there is no higher truth that could take you beyond the conflicts
between Christian churches. My point is that when you look at the
conflicts between Christian churches, you realize that it isn’t
quite that simple to define what it means to be a Christian. You can’t
simply say that any member of any Christian church is a Christian.
Sounds reasonable,
so how would you define a Christian?
Well, you could reason
that there can be only one true way to interpret the teachings I gave,
so therefore there must be one true church. All the other churches
are wrong and their members will go to Hell. Yet which church do you
pick as the only true one and how do you convince everybody else that
your pick is the only right one? People have been taking this exclusivist
approach for 2,000 years, and it hasn’t resolved the conflicts.
In fact, it has led to virtually all of the wars you mentioned earlier.
So maybe we should look for a better approach?
Maybe there is a higher understanding of what it means to be a Christian?
Maybe becoming a member of an outer church isn’t enough to make
you a true Christian? Maybe we could say that a true Christian is
a person who is on the way to fully understanding and internalizing
the true teachings of Christ, even to the point of living those teachings
in every aspect of his or her life. In other words, the person is
not just a Christian on Sunday mornings, but the person is living
my true teachings 24/7/365.
Well, that sounds
reasonable, and I assume you are now going to say that, according
to your definition, no true Christian has ever killed another human
being?
Not necessarily. Planet
Earth is a rather treacherous environment, and even true Christians
can sometimes find themselves in situations where accidents happen.
What I am saying is that no true Christian ever killed another human
being and felt that the killing was justified by my teachings. No
true Christian ever killed someone in the name of Jesus Christ or
in the name of God.
That sounds like
a sensible definition. So you are saying that if a person has truly
embodied your teachings, that person would never use your teachings
to justify killing another human being?
That is correct. How could
they? Look at just a few of my statements:
38 Ye have heard
that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven:
for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not
even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?
Do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven
is perfect. (Matthew, Chapter 5)
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and
with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (Luke 10:27)
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother
sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times:
but, Until seventy times seven. (Matthew, Chapter 18)
Can’t you see that
these few statements present an approach to life that is completely
nonviolent? Yet how can you possibly love your neighbor as yourself?
You can do so only when you realize that your neighbor is not separated
from you. Your neighbor is part of a larger whole, namely the Body
of God on Earth, and you are also part of that whole. So if you kill
your neighbor, you are actually hurting yourself, as hurting a finger
will affect the entire body.
My mission and teachings were meant to demonstrate that the true key
to salvation is to move out of a state of consciousness that is dominated
by a sense of separation and fear and move into a state of consciousness
that is entirely based on a sense of oneness and love. In other words,
I was telling people to stop responding to life with fear and to start
responding with love. It is fear that makes people kill one another.
And love is the only thing that can stop killing, because perfect
love casts out all fear (1John 4:18).
Okay, so we have
now cleverly established that the millions of people who were killed
by so-called Christians over the past 2,000 years were not killed
by true Christians. So how do we stop religious wars? I mean, a
lot of wars were started by people who believed it was their holy
duty to turn everyone into Christians, but I assume you are not
going to say that we just have to turn everyone into true Christians?
Not necessarily, although
that certainly would stop religious wars. Yet a more realistic goal
would be to help people become true followers of any true religion.
A true Buddhist would never kill another human being, and neither
would a true Hindu or Muslim.
So are you saying
that the cause of religious conflict is that people don’t
internalize the teachings of their particular religion?
Not exactly, although you
are close. There are millions of people who count themselves as Christians
and who have not fully internalized my teachings. Yet they are striving
to do so, and they have internalized enough of my teachings that they
would never kill somebody in my name. So these people have actually
internalized a part of my teachings, and therefore they deserve to
be called true followers. However, they are still following, meaning
that they have not yet arrived at the destination of fully internalizing
my teachings. In contrast, the people who start and reinforce religious
conflicts have these characteristics:
- They firmly believe
they have completely understood the teachings of their particular
religion, and they are unwilling to consider any evidence to the
contrary.
- They base this self-image
on the fact that they believe the letter of their scriptures and
follow the outer rules defined by their religion.
- Based on their interpretation
of the outer letter, they firmly believe it is necessary and justified
to use force to expand their religion. They believe their religion
must replace all other religions. The more moderate people would
not necessarily kill nonbelievers, but the more extremist people
have no compunctions about killing in the name of God. Yet all of
these people believe that the greater purpose of doing God’s
work can justify a violation of God’s laws, including my command
to turn the other cheek or God’s command not to kill.
My point is that such people
believe they know better than anyone else how their religious teachings
should be interpreted. In reality, some of them even believe they
know better than God. This is nothing but pride, and such intellectual
and spiritual pride has the effect of making people blind. Therefore,
neither God nor man can reach through these people’s prideful
beliefs and help these souls see that they are trapped behind a wall
of illusions. These people have set themselves outside the reach of
truth and reason.
If you read the scriptures, you will see that I constantly challenged
such people, and there was one particular word I used to characterize
their approach to religion. There are over a dozen passages in the
gospels in which I address the scribes and Pharisees and call them
hypocrites. I also made the following statement:
For they bind heavy
burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders;
but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
(Matthew 23:4)
Most of the people who
start religious conflicts sit in their temples of power and incite
the general population to violence. Yet they themselves avoid getting
their hands dirty or running any risk of being killed.
So are you saying
that all those who start religious conflicts are hypocrites?
That is right, but what
is the one thing that causes a person to act as a hypocrite? It is
that the person believes in a lie and refuses to admit that it is
a lie.
Virtually every religion known to man has scriptures that clearly
and unconditionally denounce killing. Take for example the commandment,
“Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Do you see any qualifications
in that commandment? Do you see the scriptures define any conditions
under which killing becomes acceptable?
No, but many
people interpret other scriptural passages to mean that killing
is acceptable.
Sure they do, but that
is because they are imposing an interpretation that allows them so
set aside the unconditional command that clearly says, “Thou
shalt not kill!”
Look at the irony. We have three major religions that all honor the
Old Testament, yet these three religions are among the most violent
religions the world has seen. How can this be? If the followers of
these religions had truly internalized and lived by the ten commandments,
how could those followers have gone to war with each other? How could
you have had the Crusades, where Christians and Muslims killed each
other and felt the killing was justified by the same God?
There can be only one reason, namely that people have found a way
to neutralize, to nullify, the unconditional nature of the commandment
not to kill. They have imposed a human interpretation upon the Word
of God that makes God’s word conditional and relative to the
situation of human beings. In other words, when they have a neighbor
who is too different, it suddenly becomes acceptable in the eyes of
the priesthood to kill that neighbor.
This is the essence of hypocrisy, and it violates the first two commandments.
The first one is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”
(Exodus 20:3), and the meaning is clear. You cannot allow any man-made
“god,” any man-made idol, to stand between you and the
real God. The real God is a God of love, not a God of war. So when
you interpret God’s words to justify killing, or when you ignore
God’s words, you are violating the second commandment, “Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image” (Exodus 20:4). When
you take the unconditional statement “Thou shalt not kill”
and cover it over with human conditions, then you have created a graven
image. And you are dancing around that golden calf instead of worshiping
the true God who defined killing as unconditionally wrong.
Copyright
© 2009 by Kim Michaels |
