I noticed before how vast portions of contemporary Christianity seem to focus almost exclusively on the Crucifixion (and a legalistic interpretation of the same),
I find these legalistic interpretations of something which could be much more spiritually profound a big turn-off myself. I think the real problem here is how we understand the issue of atonement and sacrifice in general. The legalistic position holds that the crucifixion was necessary in order to God to forgive sins. Most Christian conceptions of atonement, even when they don't realize it. are based on a formulation made by a Christian theologian named Anselm who lived a thousand years ago. He had a neo-platonic conception of a
God as possessing both perfect justice and mercy which must be
satisfied. Because of His perfect justice He cannot forgive sins
without satisfaction. And because He is merciful the means had to
provided for making that satisfaction. Living in the hierarchical
world of early medieval Europe, Anselm felt the gravity of a sin or
crime was measured by the station of the one against whom the crime or
sin had been forgiven.God being exalted above all stations, it stood
to reason that a sin against Him was of infinite gravity with eternal
repercussions. It therefore incurred a debt which man could not hope
to satisfy. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and
men could be set free from sin, was for God Himself to make the
satisfaction as a man. This formula seems to have more to do with
'fire insurance' than a relationship, except if one is seeing
'relationship' in cold, legalistic terms. It seems to me this is
necessarily so, because when God's attributes are seen these kinds of
static categories of justice and mercy we are trying to look at God in
Greek terms of essence rather than Hebrew sense of conception of God
as a Living God, a Person. And we can only have a relationship with
the latter, not the former.
For a Baha'i the Person of God is the Manifestation for God is unknowable in His Essence. Having said that, there are passages in our own Writings that appear to accept the notion of atonement and sacrifices for sin. For instance, in regards to the sacrifice of Abraham, Baha'u'llah wrote:
"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be [bless and do not curse] demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon Him. For the same reason was Husayn offered up as a sacrifice by Muhammad, the Apostle of God.
No man can ever claim to have comprehended the nature of the hidden and manifold grace of God; none can fathom His all-embracing mercy. Such hath been the perversity of men and their transgressions, so grievous have been the trials that have afflicted the Prophets of God and their chosen ones, that all mankind deserveth to be tormented and to perish. God's hidden and most loving providence, however, hath, through both visible and invisible agencies, protected and will continue to protect it from the penalty of its wickedness. Ponder this in thine heart, that the truth may be revealed unto thee, and be thou steadfast in His path."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 75)
Here is another one.
"Fix your gaze upon Him Who is the Temple of God amongst men. He, in
truth, hath offered up His life as a ransom for the redemption of the
world. He, verily, is the All-Bountiful, the Gracious, the Most
High.If any differences arise amongst you, behold Me standing before
your face, and overlook the faults
of one another for My name's sake and as a token of your love for My
manifest and resplendent Cause." Gleanings, 314.
While the Baha'i Writings do speak of ransom but they also speak of repentance as being the sole prerequisite of forgiveness. We even have references to the kind of 'death-bed' conversions that some people make fun of Christianity for:
"He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for
none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at
the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the
immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse.
And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire." KI 194-95
He likewise says; "Should anyone be afflicted by a sin, it behoveth
him to repent thereof and return unto his Lord. He, verily, granteth
forgiveness unto whomsoever He willeth, and none may question that
which it pleaseth Him to ordain."
Repentance doesn't mean simply feeling sorry for one sins, it means
turning towards God. One story that is told about Muslim mystic Rabi'a
is that one day she came upon Hasan al-Basra (an earlier Muslim
mystic) who was weeping and wailing over his sins, saying what a
wretched man he was. Rabi'a said, "Yes, you are. Because had you truly
turned towards God you would be looking at Him and not noticing your
own sins."
If repentance is the only prerequisite for forgiveness why these sacrifices and ransoms? Perhaps it is because only these kinds of sacrifices which make true repentance, true focusing on God out of love possible. This is what another medieval Christian theologian, Peter of Abelard argued. He held that the Crucifixion was necessary to forgive men's sin not because it was required on God's part but because only such a dramatic expression of God's love would enable people to repent and cause them to turn towards Him.
It strikes me that this form of atonement, unlike Anselm's formulation
*is*nrelational. But it is also something which could not be done once
and never again as in Christianity. If it is indeed grounded in God's
determination to reach us, instead of satisfying some abstract
requirements of the Divine Essence, then it would happen again and
again.
I think there is a great danger in seeing God as static, understandable by human categories like justice and mercy as Anselm liked to do. The God of the
Hebrew Bible was a Living God, a Person and like all persons (and
unlike pure essences) He had a Will, one like all wills was subject to
change on occasion. It seems to me this attempt to make God fit our mental conceptions, to put Him into a predictable box is in the end, a form of idolatry. The Living God is not so predictable. He fulfills prophecies in ways we don't expect, and at times appears to fulfill them not at all.
How embarrassing. Well, I don't feel that way about yoga. The true meaning of yoga, I gather from the Gita, is a method of acheiving union with God. The Gita explains the various methods, such as karma yoga, bhakti yoga, etc. Another great Scripture or collection of Scriptures are the Upanishads, which deals with the experience of union with God. Also, a great expositor of Vedanta--ie. the core of Hinduism--is Shankara.
