Christianity vs karma

[way 2 go]

Simple Definition of karma

: the force created by a person's actions that is believed in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine what that person's next life will be like

: the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even


Christianity

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,


Christians receive heaven which is gift we can not earn
Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

 

[patrick jane]

2 Corinthians 5:10 KJV -

 

[way 2 go]

2 Corinthians 5:10 KJV -

2Co 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even.
No terror of the Lord with karma

 

[freelight]

Karma, a universal Law..........

Karma, a universal Law..........

Simple Definition of karma

: the force created by a person's actions that is believed in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine what that person's next life will be like

: the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person

Hello way 2 go and all following......

Karma is deep and all-encompassing subject, since all life is a series of actions and corresponding re-actions, cause/effect, sequence/consequence, interdependent movements. Since we've already been over the subject of karma earlier, I'll direct readers to some past dialogue on the subject before we move on (follow all blue highlighted links).

~*~*~

Understanding 'terms' (call it 'karma' or 'the Law of Compensation')

Love is infinite

What is sown is reaped

Law of Compensation

What you measure out, will be measured back

Deformities, misfortunes, illnesses, suffering.

More on karma

First response to Way 2 go's announcement of starting this thread

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even

I still have yet to understand this logic of relation or equation above. :idunno: But don't forget,...Paul understood that 'God' (the source and power of law, or even law itself ) cannot be mocked, since sowing and reaping continue (seedtime and harvest, cause/effect)....as long as there is a living soul that thinks, speaks and acts....since all actions carry their relational effects and consequences. Hence, no matter how you slice or dice it, or throw in your 'theological construct or definitions'.....the law is universal. A trumped up or presuppositional theological dogma or 'belief' cannot abrograte or nullify what is law, and neither does a doctrine of 'vicarious blood atonement', since it wholly does away with personal responsibility to atone for one's own sins (by repentance, reformation), and even still, all the blood of a thousand animals or men, cannot take wash away sin. This is just a fact. (the issue of one's faith that blood can be efficacious, is another extended issue, covered elsewhere). - in all cases of rectification however, repentance is essential as the full act of returning to God or divine law....the return to right doing. There is no substitute for this....as faith without works is dead.

Christianity

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,


Christians receive heaven which is gift we can not earn
Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Well, lets not discount that some early Christian groups did believe in some form of 'reincarnation' (sometimes confused with the term 'resurrection' which could indicate the same event, one arising in a new physical body, and we could still quibble over 'terms' and 'meanings'). As far as immortality being a 'gift', sure... this is a teaching found in some passages, and it certainly supports the 'conditional immortality' view, since some souls who utterly/wholly reject the gift of life, actually DIE, (disintegration, destruction, annihilation) while those receiving the gift take on the very nature of God, which is immortality itself, since only 'God' has immortality ('immortality' here referring specifically to the divine nature). This blows the ECT doctrine out, which I've contested elsewhere on 'principle' alone for starters.

I'd encourage any interested to nibble on whats been shared already as a pretext, if possible, and perhaps challenge their own belief or understanding of 'justice', since karma by its own lawful action is perfectly just....so that ultimately there is perfect justice in the universe. How could there be justice any other way, since the law operates in perfect accordance to its own inward dynamic and compensating action? Of course, since God is LOVE, there is always grace present, so that karma is still governed in the light of that divine providence whose will is only for the utmost good, welfare, evolution and progress of all sentient beings....and how could Love be otherwise? If God is absolutely and ultimately omnipotent...then there is no soul that God could not draw, influence, woo or sweep into his infinite embrace in both an individual and universal sphere, since God includes, encompasses and maintains all. While this insight might resonate with a universalist premise and eschatology, so be it,...since there are also passages that speak of the restoration of all. This opens up quest-ions on many levels. Let us consider all points.

 

[freelight]

sowing and reaping.........

sowing and reaping.........

2Co 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

This is only if you believe in a god of terror, some being that has to be feared. However,...the law of action works on its own accord,....you do an action, and you reap a consequence. No exterior objective 'god' is needed here to somehow personally enforce or manipulate the mechanics involved,....the law is inherent in 'actions' themselves (unless you include an exchange of 'personal relationship' or 'interactions' modifying any effects). You can entertain a 'belief' (note its just a 'belief') that there is a 'God' manipulating or micro-managing everyone's life...but you cant see this 'God', only its effects (like breath or the wind, we don't know where it comes from, but see its effects). - I know this challenges the concept of an anthropomorphic God existing somewhere.

karma

kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even.

Again, you'll have to explain your logic above or what this even means. If you kill a person, you'll suffer consequences for doing such. If you fornicate and have a child,....you bear the consequences also :idunno:

No terror of the Lord with karma

Why does someone need the 'terror of the Lord'? Karma works of its own lawful accord and compensation. Even if you personalize Deity, or hold a concept of a "personal God",....you still reap what you sow, don't you? Arent souls judged and compensated according to their works? Passages in the Bible do claim this. - because its a fact or lawful principle, that thoughts, words, deeds produce corresponding results.

Sowing and reaping, as long as there is action of whatever kind,....results/effects correspond.

 

[Zeke]

I would add that there is a false Karma used to manipulate behavior of people, a mental condition that the Bible and Other religious text have been used to cultivate fear and anger that otherwise wouldn't have that effect outside that hypnotized Psychosis.

 

[Danoh]

History records that Adolph Hitler; one of the worst human beings ever to walk the earth, took his own life just before the supposed "karma in this life" kicked in.

The late Carlo Gambino, head of the Gambino Crime family Gotti's narcism later destroyed, murdered and had men murdered, including the man he had murdered in order to seize control of "the family."

Yet "Don Carlo," who committed his first murder at the age of 16, not only never knew the inside of a jail, but died in his sleep at a ripe old age....

Search it out and you find that this karma business is just man needing to believe that "what comes around, goes around."

It is nonsense. In order for any "universal law" to be universal, it has to be just that - universal.

But, as that fool, Karl Marx, once nevertheless rightly noted "religion (superstition) is the opiate (desired numbness) of (desired by) the masses."

 

[meshak]

"what comes around, goes around."

I believe God made it that way. The Bible says "you reap what you sow."

 

[patrick jane]

"what comes around, goes around."

Round and Round -
https://youtu.be/0u8teXR8VE4

 

[patrick jane]

Round and Round - Ratt

 

[freelight]

Lets understand how 'karma' is 'univesal'.......

Lets understand how 'karma' is 'univesal'.......

History records that Adolph Hitler; one of the worst human beings ever to walk the earth, took his own life just before the supposed "karma in this life" kicked in.

It might help to understand karma first from Hindu and Buddhist perspectives, which cover in great detail various kinds of karma,...which include fruits of one's actions being reaped in any given life-time, and that kind which is carried over and reaped in future lifetimes, and the total accumulative karma of a given soul. In Hitler's case, perhaps part of his karma was committing suicide, but in any case the karma he accrued in his lifetime would continue to be added to his account and what has been sowed, will have to be reaped at some point in time, in future re-embodiments. Regardless of space or time,...the law of karma is perfect justice. This is the case, whether one holds to a 'theistic' world view or a 'non-theistic' world view (both schools exist within eastern religions). Your example and assumption above in no way discounts karma....since all actions will bear their consequences at some point in time.

Karma

The late Carlo Gambino, head of the Gambino Crime family Gotti's narcism later destroyed, murdered and had men murdered, including the man he had murdered in order to seize control of "the family."

Yet "Don Carlo," who committed his first murder at the age of 16, not only never knew the inside of a jail, but died in his sleep at a ripe old age....

See above.

Search it out and you find that this karma business is just man needing to believe that "what comes around, goes around."

Not really, since "what a man sows, that also shall he reap"; "what measure you mete out, shall be measured back to you"; all actions have consequences...this is a universal law, because of the fact of cause & effect operating on all levels of existence. The whole universe and creation is governed by karma.

It is nonsense. In order for any "universal law" to be universal, it has to be just that - universal.

Show that 'action' and its corresponding results or consequences is NOT universal.

See: A right understanding of Karma (Theosophical perspective)

But, as that fool, Karl Marx, once nevertheless rightly noted "religion (superstition) is the opiate (desired numbness) of (desired by) the masses."

Since karma (action/consequence, cause/effect) is a universal law, it is NOT a 'religion' or 'superstition', so is NOT an 'opiate' of any kind. However,...what Marx was likely referring to, includes your own brand of 'religious belief', 'dogma' or 'theology', among other religious belief systems...which may serve as a 'medicine' or 'opiate' to the people but not necessarily give them the happiness or peace that political or economic situations could more appropriately afford. But this veers off into a study of what Karl Marx really meant by his quote, perhaps better understood in context in an article here

 

[csuguy]

First off, I would like to point out that in religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, wholesome karma does not negate unwholesome karma. Good does not cancel bad. Each are accumulated and dispersed independently. This may be regarded as absolute justice, as freelight argues. However, this view can be called into question due to the fact that there is no permanent self - the one who recieves the punishment/reward is not trulythe one who performed the original action.

Karma as a concept has some merit from the perspective of justice. However, in Christianity we understand that forgiveness and repentance are greater than justice. Justice is good, but should be tempered with compassion. Karma, as a kind of impersonal force, leaves no room for this.

While not ideal, the concept of karma doesn't really bug me - save when people attempt to merge it with Christianity. Far more concerning is how this concept is used in a religion like Buddhism when combined with other concepts like Samsara and Nirvana. Karma is identified as the cause of the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara), while the goal is to escape this endless cycle which is associated with suffering. To put an end to the endless cycle of 'suffering' - they cease to do good or bad. They must cease producing karma (aka, cease moral actions) and only do neutral acts. They give up on what is good and seek death.

 

[csuguy]

Now, with regards to what is required of Christians, we are required to give our lives. We are required to persistently seek what is right and good. Then we are rewarded with eternal life.

Matthew 7:21-27 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and [o]acts on them, [p]may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the [q]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not [r]act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”​

Romans 2:6-11 [God] will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress [e]for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

 

[Selaphiel]

I think it is problematic to link the concept of karma with justice at all. Justice implies a judge, a subject that evaluates and judges. A better word would be a more impersonal term like consequence. Karma is not about being judged at all. The karmic religions, at least Buddhism, is about examining reality through contemplation and meditation, and observing what kind of consequences different types of actions and attitudes have. It is a purely pragmatic concept of good and bad. This is quite different from theistic religions. Christianity is about finding the true self (although whether this involves some substantial static entity is another question. I think the Cartesian concept of self is often too easily and uncritically absorbed into Christian anthropology). What matters is that that self is true when in right relation to God and neighbor. That leads to true personhood, true community, true peace and eternal life.

That it is not the same person that receieves this consequence is thus not very important. The stream of consciousness, a stream of cause and effect. What they were affects what they will become.

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even

Well, that is an absolutely ridiculous description of the concept of karma. Having a child would negate murder in karmic religions, not even close.

 

[meshak]

Karma concept came from God, not the other way around.

 

[csuguy]

I think it is problematic to link the concept of karma with justice at all. Justice implies a judge, a subject that evaluates and judges. A better word would be a more impersonal term like consequence. Karma is not about being judged at all. The karmic religions, at least Buddhism, is about examining reality through contemplation and meditation, and observing what kind of consequences different types of actions and attitudes have. It is a purely pragmatic concept of good and bad. This is quite different from theistic religions....

I agree that karma is better thought of as a consequence than as justice. I disagree, however, that their conception of good and bad are purely pragmatic. Rather, as in Buddhism, what is important is not the results of the action, but the mindset and motivation with which an action is performed. Wholesome karma is generated when you do something with a desire to do good, unwholesome karma is generated from the desire to do bad. Neutral karma is generated when you act without any moral intentions. Whether you are saving a child's life or murdering an innocent - what you are actually doing isn't important as far as karma is concerned. If you can murder someone passively - without thought or feeling on the matter - then you don't generate unwholesome karma. Likewise, if you save someone's life passively you don't generate wholesome karma. By seeking such a high degree of dettachment to the world and to everyone in it - they seek this state where they can do whatever they want and have no consequences, no karma.

 

[john w]

This is the only karma tune I dig:

 

[Selaphiel]

That sounds like an interpretation of Buddhism that you find in certain forms of Zen associated with warrior classes. I'm not sure that is accepted by the more traditional schools of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. I would think they would deny that an enlightened person would ever kill anyone.

But that is a bit besides the point. Aren't the motivations for these particulars states of mind in themselves pragamtic in that they are good because they serve the purpose of enlightenment? That is, they are not motivated some transcendent conception of good (or evil, even evil as privation). In other words, their conception of good is not autotelic, it serves a practical purpose rather than being a reason in itself.

 

[csuguy]

That sounds like an interpretation of Buddhism that you find in certain forms of Zen associated with warrior classes. I'm not sure that is accepted by the more traditional schools of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. I would think they would deny that an enlightened person would ever kill anyone.

No - this is a generally accepted view. I took several courses on Buddhism in its various forms, as well as more general classes on Asian Religions - and they were taught by Buddhists. Here an online Buddhist resource on the topic:

The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma. It covers all that is included in the phrase "thought, word and deed". Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes Karma. In its ultimate sense Karma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute Karma, because volition, the most important factor in determining Karma, is absent...

Ignorance (avijja), or not knowing things as they truly are, is the chief cause of Karma. Dependent on ignorance arise activities (avijja paccaya samkhara) states the Buddha in the Paticca Samuppada (Dependent Origination). Associated with ignorance is the ally craving (tanha), the other root of Karma. Evil actions are conditioned by these two causes. All good deeds of a worldling (putthujana), though associated with the three wholesome roots of generosity (alobha), goodwill (adosa) and knowledge (amoha), are nevertheless regarded as Karma because the two roots of ignorance and craving are dormant in him.
(http://buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm)
​

Thus karma is largely a matter of one's understanding and motive, as opposed to simply the physical action being performed.

But that is a bit besides the point. Aren't the motivations for these particulars states of mind in themselves pragamtic in that they are good because they serve the purpose of enlightenment? That is, they are not motivated some transcendent conception of good (or evil, even evil as privation). In other words, their conception of good is not autotelic, it serves a practical purpose rather than being a reason in itself.

There is, of course, a point to attempting to detach oneself from the world, to learn to see things as they 'truly' are, and to crease producing karma. The point is to escape from suffering, to escape the cycle of death and rebirth, to be put out (Nirvana). This was what the Buddha was focused on solving - finding a way to end suffering.

 

[kmoney]

By seeking such a high degree of dettachment to the world and to everyone in it - they seek this state where they can do whatever they want and have no consequences, no karma.

There is, of course, a point to attempting to detach oneself from the world, to learn to see things as they 'truly' are, and to crease producing karma. The point is to escape from suffering, to escape the cycle of death and rebirth, to be put out (Nirvana). This was what the Buddha was focused on solving - finding a way to end suffering.

Should the first quote be connected to the second quote? So, they aren't seeking to detachment in order to escape consequences but they are seeking detachment because attachment brings suffering and the lack of karma is more of an indirect result?