Doctrines of Salvation vs. Doctrine of Karma

Doctrine of Karma is the Universal law of personal accountability. Christian doctrine of Original Sin and the Biblical concept of vicarious redemption are incompatible with the doctrine of Karma.

Rajiv Malhotra compares the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to bring salvation to all humanity from Original Sin, with the doctrine of Karma.

• Karma is not transmitted via biological reproduction: Adam and Eve committed Original Sin when they violated God's commands. As a result of their act, God cursed the entirety of mankind forever, i.e., Adam and Eve's children, grandchildren, and so forth, ad infinitum, were forever condemned by God. This is known to Christians as Eternal Damnation. However, the karma of Adam and Eve cannot be transmitted to their biological offspring, and Adam and Eve must pay for their karma in their own rebirths. A given person carries his/her own personal karma into his/her own next life, and one's karma does not get transmitted to one's biological children. I do not suffer from the karma of my parents nor do my children suffer from my karma.

• Karma is always finite and its phala (consequence or fruit) cannot be infinite: Regardless of how bad Adam and Eve's misdeed was it could not cause eternal phala, which is what Eternal Damnation is. Every karma is finite and its phala is finite, even if it lasts a million years.

• My Karma phala has to be borne by me:  Karma theory is about personal accountability. One has to face the consequences of one’s own karma.  There is no escape. I brought my past life's karma phala into this world and will take this life's karma phala into my next birth. Where is personal accountability if I can commit sin and have God shower his grace on me and remove the consequences?  What kind of fairness is there if God forgives a mass murderer by showering His grace on the murderer just because he accepts Jesus as his savior?

• Someone else cannot bear the consequences (phala) of my actions (karma):   Christianity says that it is not possible to overcome original sin through one’s own actions. God alone can bring salvation to humanity.  How exactly did God bring salvation to humanity? By sacrificing Jesus through crucifixion. It is barbaric to suggest that God forgives sins by sacrificing life of other animals or other human beings.  It is even more barbaric to suggest that the all powerful God needs the sacrifice of Jesus to remove sin.  Vicarious redemption (redemption of one’s sins by another) is not allowed in Karma theory. Sacrificing Jesus cannot bring salvation to others. 

• Effect (phala) cannot precede the cause (karma): Karma theory states that first the karma has to occur and only then can its consequences occur. Effect (phala) never precedes cause (karma). But Jesus is said to have suffered (the phala) 2,000 years in advance of our birth today, and his suffering was to redeem our karma of today. This implies that Jesus suffered in advance of our karma, but phala in advance of the karma is impossible. The claim seems to be that Jesus established a sort of 'phala bank' and deposited infinite amount of phala in advance, and all those who accept his offer may neutralize all their karmas by drawing against this 'phala bank' account. This is simply impossible in karma theory.

Christian Defenses:

Anselm of Canterbury's  (1033-1109) Satisfaction Theory:

Penal Substitution is the idea that Christ bore the penalty for sin, in place of sinners. Penal substitution is a sinister and immoral idea that Christians for long have sought to offer alternative explanations.

Penal substitution was the prevailing understanding of Christians until Anselm suggested the workaround.  Anselm of Canterbury offers a nebulous explanation called the Satisfaction Theory.  Anselm regarded human sin as defrauding God of the honor he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, gives God great honor. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honor than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Christ's death is still substitutionary but in a different sense than penalty: he pays the honor instead of us. But that substitution is not penal; his death pays our honor not our penalty.

Anslem believed that humans could not render to God more than what was due to him. The satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required of them. Therefore, God had to make satisfaction for himself. Yet if this satisfaction was going to avail for humans, it had to be made by a human. Therefore only a being that was both God and man could satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him.

[Comments:  Calling it penal substitution implies that God required sacrifice of Jesus in exchange for bringing salvation for humanity from Original Sin.  That is outright barbaric. Calling it satisfaction implies that Jesus sacrificed himself voluntarily.  This only makes God look a little less barbaric but the central problems are still in place.]

Protestant Reformers - Divine Justice Theory

Protestant reformers shifted the focus of Anselm's satisfaction theory from divine offense to divine justice. God's righteousness demands punishment for human sin. God in his grace both exacts punishment and supplies the one to bear it.

For Anselm, Jesus obeyed where we humans should have obeyed.

For John Calvin, Jesus was punished where we humans should have been punished.

[Questions: Why would the omnipotent God make this sin hereditary, for all future generations of Adam and Eve, so that all humanity has to bear this?  Having made it unavoidable, why would God place an insurmountable burden of sin which was more than humans were capable of paying for? What is so graceful about a God who exacts punishment but then supplies someone to pay for that sin?  Is the loving God so egotistical that he demands payments for his honor?  Would the loving God accept the sacrifice of innocent Jesus to pay for humanity's inherited burden?  ]

Christian Dilemma: Final Comments

The Christian Dilemma is as follows:

As a righteous  judge, God willed something for the fallen human race that he could not possibly will in his role as  a loving father; and as a loving father, he willed something that he could not possibly will in his  role as a righteous judge.  As a righteous judge, he willed that justice should prevail; and since justice requires retribution for sin, he was quite prepared to punish sin— in hell, for example - without any regard for the sinner's own good. But as a loving father, he also wanted to forgive sin and to permit his loved ones to escape the terrible punishment they deserved on account of their sin.  Hence the strife within the heart of God, and hence the need for an atonement that  would appease the wrath of God— that is, satisfy his justice— and put an end to the strife.  Christ died not to effect a cure in us, but to put an end to a bad case of schizophrenia in the Father.

Christians Theologians explain that Christ died in order that God might be merciful to sinners without violating his own sense of justice.  

• Is God really so helpless?    

• If morality is nothing more than God's nature, then God in all his mercy could have forgiven Original Sin of humanity and spared the monstrous act of crucifixion of Jesus? 

• What sort of Justice is it where an innocent Jesus has to honor God by sacrificing himself for the dishonor done to God by someone else?   If God chose to forgive Humanity, Jesus would have been spared and no human would see an issue with it in terms of justice.  Why could not God?  

• Is justice then something immutable, hence given, even for Christian God?  Perhaps the Christian God should have looked into the doctrine of Karma for justice.  Humanity would have been spared from the consequences of sin committed by Adam and Eve.  Jesus would have been spared from vicariously redeeming humanity.  God would have been spared from the dilemma.