>Juan: I am not questioning that karma and reincarnation shed essential light on the subject of Christ: I am questioning that karma and reincarnation is essential to the experience of Christ.
>Kim: No, of course it's not essential to the experience of Christ, as saints have experienced. ..
Right. I didn't express myself well here. The last line should be:
"I am questioning that karma and reincarnation is essential to our Life in the Spirit once one has come to this experience of Christ".
Steiner's idea about the "indispensability" of the teching of karma and reincarnation goes more (probably) in the direction of life between death and rebirth, of establishing the necessary or "correct" relationship to the Spirit. The idea --I think-- is more or less that since life after death is dependent on the contents of our soul during life, the "chopping off" the basic truth of reincarnation and karma present now in Christianity will result in humanity increasingly mising its evolutionary "goal" and falling prey to the Ahrimanic and Luciferic opposing forces as a result of what is fatally missing in this life between death and rebirth.
A good part of the "indispensability" of Anthroposophy for the world --as he experienced it in his day-- is along these lines, i.e., the teaching is given out of the need of the dead more than the need of the living.
My point is that once this relationship with Christ is established, there is the right relationship to the Spirit and the **teaching** of karma in the usual ways (a law, a principle, a concept) becomes unnecessary or irrelevant, putting intelectual or philosophical need aside.
From the intelectual or philosophical perspective I agree that without it there is "a hole", but what I am describing is that at another, more essential level dealing with the experience of Christ, it becomes irrelevant in the way that it is usually presented or dealt with.
I will try to explain this point a little more later on.