Discussion Guide / Questions About The Cross
13.7 Christianity says God does not ignore evil but bears judgment himself in Christ. How does that compare with karmic repayment?
Typical Answer 1
A Hindu might say karmic repayment seems more just because each person receives the consequences of their own actions. Substitution can sound unfair.
Gentle Christian Response
That concern is understandable. Christianity does not teach that an unwilling third party is punished arbitrarily. It teaches that God himself, in the Son, freely bears judgment to save sinners. Jesus says he lays down his life of his own accord (John 10:18). The judge bears the cost of mercy. That is different from injustice; it is self-giving love. If the offended God bears the cost himself, does substitution still seem unfair?
Typical Answer 2
A Hindu might say karmic repayment teaches responsibility, while the cross might let people avoid consequences.
Gentle Christian Response
The cross does not remove responsibility; it deepens it. If Christ died for sin, sin is more serious, not less. Romans 6:1-2 rejects the idea that grace permits continued sin. Grace unites believers to Christ's death and new life. Christians are forgiven in order to be transformed. The cross removes condemnation, not moral seriousness. Would seeing sin as costly enough for the cross make someone more careless or more repentant?
Typical Answer 3
A Hindu might say the cross is beautiful as love, but karmic repayment better preserves moral order.
Gentle Christian Response
Christianity says the cross preserves moral order more deeply than repayment alone because it upholds justice while opening reconciliation. Karmic repayment may balance accounts, but it cannot personally forgive or restore communion with God. Second Corinthians 5:19 says God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The goal is not only balanced consequence, but restored relationship. Which is better news: a universe where every debt returns to you, or a God who bears debt to bring you home?