To order original high quality academic papers, fill the form below:
Salvation in Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity
Salvation in Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity
All major world religions; Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity, assert that human beings are in dire need of salvation. Humanity does not exhibit the full purpose of its existence since the real life is a distant reflection of the ideal life. However, various religions differ from each other on the means of attaining salvation, the resources required for attaining salvation, the path of getting saved and the meaning of salvation (Comparative Religion, 2017). To assess the meaning of salvation in various world religions, this paper analyses the three aspects. Some religions like Islam and Buddhism claim that salvation comes through inner resources such as meditation, gaining wisdom, asceticism, works, rituals etc. Christianity, on the other hand, claims that humans cannot be saved by their own actions; they need an external divine savior.
Considering the three aspects which define salvation; what is needed, the means and the meaning of salvation, the three religions cannot be reconciled. According to the Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, human beings have all resources required for salvation at their disposal (Comparative Religion, 2017). They can choose on whether to get saved or not by what they do. If humans do the right thing, they can be saved. People have the ability to pursue the right paths on their own strength without relying on any external influence from gods. Judaism claims that human can be saved if they do good works and follow the moral law as explained in the Bible. However, Christianity holds a totally different view. According to Christian teachings, the true nature of humanity is sinfulness. Human beings need an external savior other than themselves since their own efforts cannot earn them salvation. Works or anything done by humans in a bid to save their souls is null and void.
The religions hold divergent views on the resources necessary for salvation. The two religions, Judaism and Buddhism, which claim that human beings have the all resources necessary for salvation stress that human beings have to put in the required effort. Judaism and Buddhism claim that people have the resources necessary. All they have to do is good work; meditate on the right things, perform devotional rituals, assert themselves physically, accumulate wisdom and help those in need among other good works. Christianity teaches the exact opposite. They state that no amount of good works can earn people salvation. According to Christian teachings, people cannot save themselves no matter how good they are and no matter how many nice deeds they perform. Christians believe that they cannot do anything to merit salvation and eternal unity with God. The only resource necessary for salvation is God’s grace which is given free of charge by God as revealed in Jesus Christ. Salvation by works is irrelevant in Christianity while it is embraced in Judaism and Buddhism (Sinani, 2016).
Concerning the meaning of eternal life and salvation, the views by the three religions are again divergent and irreconcilable. Buddhism claims that salvation is total illumination which involves personal discovery and conformity to oneself and the laws which regulate eternal existence (Sinani, 2016). This involves personal extinction and assumption of a higher order which is the ultimate reality. Buddhists believe that human beings will finally assume initial angelic states. Christianity and Judaism define salvation as a state of eternal communion with God in perfect harmony. It is clear that the contradictions between religions cannot be reconciled.
References
Comparative Religion. (2017). Comparative Religion – Salvation and eternal life in world religions. Comparativereligion.com. Retrieved 10 December 2017, from https://www.comparativereligion.com/salvation.html
Sinani, D. (2016). Salvation and Eternal Life in an Alternative Religious Movement – The Raëlian Book of the Cloned. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 8(1), 173. http://dx.doi.org/10.21301/eap.v8i1.8