What would Jesus say about Christian fundamentalism?

TOPICS: What state of consciousness crucified Jesus – mythical state of consciousness based on stories, not fact – why Jesus taught in parables – today many people in a rational state of consciousness – do not take parables literally – true aim of religion – essence of Jesus’ teachings is the path, and it can be described rationally –

Question: I have personally had a few discussions with fundamentalist Christians and I found it difficult to talk to them. I would like to know what you would say to such people.

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels:

I would start by asking them if they consider it a tragedy that Jesus Christ was crucified. Most of them would say yes. I would then ask them to consider who crucified me. They would say the Jews. I would then ask them to take a closer look. I would ask them to consider what kind of Jews crucified me. I would ask them to consider the state of consciousness of the people who crucified me.

If you read the scriptures, you will see that I was crucified by people who had a very specific attitude towards religion. These people were not only orthodox Jews; they were fundamentalist Jews. They were concerned about the letter of the law, and they wanted to interpret the law literally.

I was crucified because of a specific state of consciousness. I was crucified by Jews who embodied that state of consciousness. Today, many Christians embody that same state of consciousness. My statement, “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” was meant to rebuke the fundamentalist or literal approach to religion. These people had not entered into the Christ consciousness. They were attempting to prevent others from entering because when no one attains Christ consciousness, it seems like these people do not have to change their approach to religion.

A religious teaching is always given to people in a certain state of consciousness, and the teaching will to some degree reflect that state of consciousness. In ancient times, people were in a magical or mythical state of consciousness. They were given religious teachings that appealed to that state of consciousness. When you are trying to formulate a spiritual teaching that is directed at people in a mythical state of consciousness, your primary concern is not to give forth a teaching based on fact. Your primary concern is to use myth to tell a story that will help these people understand spiritual concepts.

Why did I teach the multitudes in parables? Because 2,000 years ago the multitudes were in a mythical state of consciousness. The most effective way to teach these people about the spiritual reality was not to give them a factual or rational teaching. Such a teaching would have had no chance of appealing to them in that state of consciousness. Therefore, I told them stories; I taught them in parables. A parable is not meant to be taken literally. It is not a factual account of actual events. It is a myth, a story that illustrates a point. It was never meant to be interpreted literally.

As I explained earlier, what has happened over the past 2,000 years is that most people have been raised out of the mythical state of consciousness and into a rational state of consciousness. The problem here is that most people are not aware of this development. They fail to understand that the teachings I gave 2,000 years ago were not formulated for people in a rational state of consciousness. Because so many people are attached to Christianity, they attempt to interpret my teachings from a rational state of consciousness.

When people attempt to interpret a myth from a rational state of consciousness, they inevitably run into contradictions or things that don’t make sense. Because of the relativity of the dualistic mind, most people attempt to resolve these contradictions by taking things to the extreme. They take a black and white perspective, and this causes people to go in one of two directions.

One direction causes people to reason that my teachings simply do not make sense. They are not rational, they are not factual and they cannot be reconciled with scientific facts. Therefore, my teachings must be rejected in their entirety. Such people look at certain teachings, compare them to current scientific knowledge and use the discrepancies to reject my entire message. Obviously, I consider this an unbalanced approach.

The other extreme is represented by people who refuse to see any incompleteness in my teachings. They have fallen into the trap of thinking that if my teachings were proven incomplete, my entire message would be invalidated. Because they don’t want to realize the need for progressive revelation, they have to make it seem like my teachings are as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago. Their only option is to say that my teachings should be taken literally. They reason that my teachings must be interpreted from a rational perspective, meaning that my parables, my stories, must be interpreted as factual events or literal accounts. This is the other extreme of using a rational state of consciousness to look at a teaching that was given to people in a mythical state of consciousness. I also consider this reaction to be unbalanced.

I think common sense should make it clear that you cannot take my teachings and interpret them literally. If people would use a little bit of logic to evaluate fundamentalist interpretations, they would quickly see that this approach to religion simply does not make sense. If you want to take my teachings literally, you must reason that my parable about the laborers in the vineyard applies only to people who work in a vineyard. And since most people no longer work in a vineyard, that parable is basically obsolete.

As another obvious example, take my statement, “The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force.” A literal interpretation would lead you to believe that it is possible for the violent to enter the kingdom of heaven by force. The logical consequence is that the kingdom of heaven has been overrun by Satan and his fallen angels because they are the most violent beings one could imagine. Obviously, that is not the case. My statement was meant to illustrate that violent people attempt to take heaven by force. They attempt to force the process of spiritual growth; they attempt to use the dualistic mind to achieve spiritual growth. In reality, these attempts can never work. The kingdom of heaven is permanently sealed from all beings in a lower state of consciousness. This is clearly demonstrated in my parable about the man who entered the wedding feast without a wedding garment and was cast into outer darkness.

Let us step back from the issue. The relativity of the lower mind causes people to polarize into the extremes and in so doing, they fail to see the middle way, the balanced perspective of the Christ mind. Some people reject my teachings because they seemingly cannot be reconciled with scientific findings. Others interpret them literally and cling to the infallibility of my teachings. It is my hope that some people will be able so see the futility of both these approaches. Both approaches are based on a misunderstanding of the true purpose of religion. As stated several times, religion is given to people in a certain state of consciousness, and it aims to raise them to a higher level. Once at that level, people need and will receive a higher teaching.

When you acknowledge this fact, you see the middle way. My teachings were given to people in a mythical state of consciousness, and they should not be taken literally. You don’t have to go into the extremes of either rejecting my entire message or taking it literally. Instead, you can open your mind to a higher understanding of my message. My basic message is as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. My basic message is the existence of a path that leads to a higher state of consciousness. Back then, I clothed my message in myth and parable. Today, the same message can be expressed in more rational terms. So instead of throwing the Christ child out with the bath water, why not look for a more rational teaching that describes my message in a contemporary language?


 Copyright © Kim Michaels, 2003