Christianity vs karma

[csuguy]

This discussion will not get very far unless you discuss what 'love' actually entails. It is concept where the English language is rather poor and limited, as love can refer to many different forms of relating to others. It is not a given that love requiers desire and attachment. As far as I understand it, metta is defined as 'love without attachment'. A love that is the universal in the sense that it wishes the well being of all things. Agape is not that dissimilar, it is wishing the well being of others, which does not necessarily mean attachment to them. And of course, the simple distinction between eros and agape in much of Christian theology is not very satisfactory. The reality is far more complex. The difference might be that that some form of eros/desire is part of the Christian form of love (but eros must be freed from the false conception of it as mere possession of the other).

Point is that there are rather complicated concepts at the bottom of this discussion.

It is a given that the kind of love talked about in Christianity requires desire and attachment - attachment to the individuals and a desire for their well-being, for their salvation, and for everyone to be reconciled together as children of God. Christian love requires very real sacrifice on the part of the individual for the sake of others - with the greatest act of love being to give one's life for the sake of another. Love is the basis for everything in Christianity - how we live our lives, our morals and values, and our very purpose.

Even God is love. And do we not witness in him great desire and attachment as a result? Has he not suffered on our account? And I do not refer only to Christ's sacrifice, though that more than establishes the point on its own - but we see throughout scripture a constant battle that God is fighting with us and for us - to save us and bring us back to what is right and good, with man constantly returning to his sins like a dog to his throwup. Was he not greatly saddened by the flood? Or angered by the Jews when they created the Golden Caph? Even to the point of threatening to destroy them all and restart with Moses? To say that the love of God does NOT entail attachment is clearly false.

To say that Christian love does not require attachment and desire is to ignore everything the Christianity is. You cannot love and feel nothing for your neighbor - you cannot be detached from their well-being and suffering. You cannot watch them in their time of need and suffering and not yourself desire to help them. Even one's enemies are to be loved - we are not to rejoice at their destruction, but feel great sorrow at their loss.

All of this is absolutely incompatible with Buddhism, which seeks to escape the suffering caused through such attachments. So much do they fear suffering that they would abandon all the good and joy that true love brings and exchange it for an escape.

The biggest difference between the two religions is the end goal. An extinguishing of the person is incompatible with Christianity, it only seek to extinguish a false self, that is the self that is wrongly oriented away from God and neighbor. The other would be the impersonal karma versus the personal God that is love and who is merciful.

The end goal, the means to get there, and the underlying concepts justifying them. In short - just about everything between the two is contradictory.

 

[csuguy]

I realize there are a number of ways of understanding karma, but for myself, I just view it is the reflection, back at me, of my own effect on the world around me.

There are indeed many views of karma. For example, in Jainism karma is considered to be a 'cosmic dirt' that is attracted to the vibrations of the soul that are caused by the activities of the mind, body, and speech. It is more of a physical substance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma)

When I speak of karma in this thread I'm referring specifically about Karma as understood generally by Buddhism. There is a lot of overlap between Buddhism and Hinduism, though I'm not studied enough on Hinduism to say whether or not they have identical conceptions of karma

 

[Zeke]

The Law is only part of the OT and of Christianity. But even the Law, properly understood, is not impersonal - for it too is rooted in love. However, even if one were to concede that the Law, in of itself, were impersonal, the Law is not God Almighty - who is very personal, who wants to be our God and who wants us to be his people, who wants to save us and to teach us to do right, who sacrificed his Son that we might be saved. Karma at no level can compare to this.



I never asserted that love was isolated to Christianity - merely that love is the core thereof. Scripture even goes so far as to assert that God is love.

However, I will assert that Buddhism does, in fact, lack love. They speak of 'loving kindness' and the like to be sure - but a truly practicing Buddhist cannot love. Love requires attachment - it requires carrying about the well-being of others, and even suffering for their sake. The greatest act of love is to die for another. This is entirely contradictory to Buddhism.

To me it doesn't really matter what one wants to label themselves, the experience called karma is also just a word that is able to transcend across the spectrum of beliefs, using different marques/labels that can morph into what ever one needs it to mean to them while stuck in Identity, I would see the more excellent way being an ultimate state where these methods and religious paths or no longer a crutch for the mind to cuddle with dreaming I have found the exclusive/path answer withheld from other cultures through the Centuries until the historic Jesus arrived on the stage to pull the curtain back for the world to see God for the first time,
When it was in Man all along Luke 17:20-21, which is the esoteric mission presented in the scriptures to reconcile that dual nature Genesis 33:4, between the heart and mind going through Divine adolescents Galatians 4:23-28, not a outward history lesson to build megalithic doctrines on that divide everyone.

 

[Selaphiel]

It is a given that the kind of love talked about in Christianity requires desire and attachment - attachment to the individuals and a desire for their well-being, for their salvation, and for everyone to be reconciled together as children of God. Christian love requires very real sacrifice on the part of the individual for the sake of others - with the greatest act of love being to give one's life for the sake of another. Love is the basis for everything in Christianity - how we live our lives, our morals and values, and our very purpose.

Even God is love. And do we not witness in him great desire and attachment as a result? Has he not suffered on our account? And I do not refer only to Christ's sacrifice, though that more than establishes the point on its own - but we see throughout scripture a constant battle that God is fighting with us and for us - to save us and bring us back to what is right and good, with man constantly returning to his sins like a dog to his throwup. Was he not greatly saddened by the flood? Or angered by the Jews when they created the Golden Caph? Even to the point of threatening to destroy them all and restart with Moses? To say that the love of God does NOT entail attachment is clearly false.

To say that Christian love does not require attachment and desire is to ignore everything the Christianity is. You cannot love and feel nothing for your neighbor - you cannot be detached from their well-being and suffering. You cannot watch them in their time of need and suffering and not yourself desire to help them. Even one's enemies are to be loved - we are not to rejoice at their destruction, but feel great sorrow at their loss.

I'm inclined to agree that Christianity requires more than love without desire. But it doesn't change the fact that there has been no actual presentation of the conceptual understandings of love in Christianity or in Buddhism. That would have to be the starting point, otherwise there are simply a discussion of equivocation.

Also, it should not be neglected that for most of Christian tradition, in its theology. Mixing desire and suffering with love has not been done without criticism. The understanding of God was very quickly paired with the idea of the apatheia of God. That is God is unmoved, God is a perfect unchangeable being (change implies either increase or decrase in perfection, ergo the being is not already perfect). If that is maintained, then God cannot suffer, God cannot be affected by others. If that is paired with the idea that God is love (agape), the very perfection of love as such, then the perfection of love is unmoved by the suffering of others, it is the universal orientation towards the well being of all things. That idea is not that far from the concept of metta, unconditional universal love without attachment. Both are similar to the Stoic ideals of power as unilateral, you affect, but are not affected yourself.

Working that out actually requires some fairly complex theological thinking. Either God is perfect and cannot change, that is cannot know contingent facts, cannot be attached to or be affected by anyone or anything, God is a completely self-contained and self-sufficient perfect being. On the other side, saying that God changes in relation to all things presents the danger anthropomorphism. Hence there are certain forms of dipolar theism, that postulates that God is both absolute being, perfect in every way, but also the perfectly related individual (dipolar as having a pole that is the unconditionall ground of being itself, and a consequent pole that changes in relation to creation).

 

[csuguy]

I'm inclined to agree that Christianity requires more than love without desire. But it doesn't change the fact that there has been no actual presentation of the conceptual understandings of love in Christianity or in Buddhism. That would have to be the starting point, otherwise there are simply a discussion of equivocation.

There has been discussion of the differences between the two - which is how we reached this point. But I am not against diving deeper into the matter; though I feel much of it is self-evident to one who is familiar with Christianity and the scriptures.

Let us start then with God, who is love, and the clear desires and suffering that arise from his love for us. Does he not describe himself as a jealous God? Does he not liken the worship of idols to adultery? Yes - he likens such an act to one of the gravest emotional injuries one can experience in this life, betrayal and abandonment from the one you dedicated your life too, your heart too. And we see throughout scripture his anger at this - did he not tell Moses that he would destroy all of Israel and begin again with him alone? So great was his fury that he was willing to destroy the very people he had just saved from Pharaoh - even his own people of promise, whom he had called his son.

Or again consider the destruction of the world in Noah's time: did he not do this because the evil in man's heart troubled his heart deeply and made him regret that he had ever made them?

Let us look at his desire for us: is it not that we should be saved from our sins and reconciled back to him as sons and daughters with Christ? And how greatly did he desire this that he would send his only begotten son, whom he loves, as a sacrifice for our sake? And how much did the son love us that he would be willing to endure such hardship and suffering for our sakes? In his life and death we find the greatest expression of love: to give one's life for one's loved ones.

Let us look at his commandments: the greatest of which are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And the second is like it - to love your fellow man as yourself. Christ pushes this even further and commands us to love others as he has loved us. Or again consider the wisdom of James that says that faith without works is dead. Consider the wisdom that one who has material wealth and sees one in need, but does not help them, does not have the love of God.

Love is the all-pervasive guide and motive behind everything God does, and everything that he commands of us. This love is not dispassionate, but brings joy and sorrow. For is God not saddened at the loss of one of his children, and does he not rejoice when a lost son finds his way back home? Does he not slay the fattened calf for him?

No, Christianity leaves no room for this idea that the love it speaks of is dispassionate and without desire - or even suffering. This is why God is said to be love: for it is the overriding characteristic that defines his very nature, the motive behind his every action.

Also, it should not be neglected that for most of Christian tradition, in its theology. Mixing desire and suffering with love has not been done without criticism. The understanding of God was very quickly paired with the idea of the apatheia of God. That is God is unmoved, God is a perfect unchangeable being (change implies either increase or decrase in perfection, ergo the being is not already perfect). If that is maintained, then God cannot suffer, God cannot be affected by others. If that is paired with the idea that God is love (agape), the very perfection of love as such, then the perfection of love is unmoved by the suffering of others, it is the universal orientation towards the well being of all things. That idea is not that far from the concept of metta, unconditional universal love without attachment. Both are similar to the Stoic ideals of power as unilateral, you affect, but are not affected yourself.

Working that out actually requires some fairly complex theological thinking. Either God is perfect and cannot change, that is cannot know contingent facts, cannot be attached to or be affected by anyone or anything, God is a completely self-contained and self-sufficient perfect being. On the other side, saying that God changes in relation to all things presents the danger anthropomorphism. Hence there are certain forms of dipolar theism, that postulates that God is both absolute being, perfect in every way, but also the perfectly related individual (dipolar as having a pole that is the unconditionall ground of being itself, and a consequent pole that changes in relation to creation).

There are those who have tried to maintain such arguments, but they are not rooted in scripture - they aren't rooted in what we know of God: his nature, actions, and desires. The position that God is completely unmoved without any variation is simply bad philosophy/theology.

In the first place - we see that God changes in various ways in the scriptures. Consider creation for instance: one one day he creates one thing. Then he stops, and on the next day he does makes something else. And on the final day he rests and creates nothing. Were God some static, unchanging figure this would not be possible. Nor would his heart be so troubled in one moment that he destroys the entire world, and in the next making a promise to never again destroy the world through water. He would not at one point call for all the first born sons of Israel to be priests, and in the next take only the sons of Aaron.

There is not honest way to approach the scriptures and maintain that God is unmoved. They have poorly interpreted the scriptures which talk about God's nature not changing and over applied it to create nonsensical contradictions.

Furthermore, just from a philosophical perspective the idea that if one changes then one cannot be perfect is fundamentally flawed. We know of numerous instances where flexibility/adaptability to the conditions makes one stronger than being rigid. Indeed - it is usually the case that adaptability is superior to something that is unbending. The scriptures themselves teach that there are times for all things in their turn: a time for sowing and a time for reaping, a time for peace and a time for war, etc. Does not the tree that is able to bend in the wind survive the storm? Does not a diverse genome make for a stronger species? Is not compassion and forgiveness superior to a rigid, unmerciful justice system?

Change does not necessarily equate to imperfection - but rather, the inability to change can make one weak and ill suited to handle changing conditions.

 

[way 2 go]

opcorn:

 

[csuguy]

To me it doesn't really matter what one wants to label themselves, the experience called karma is also just a word that is able to transcend across the spectrum of beliefs, using different marques/labels that can morph into what ever one needs it to mean to them while stuck in Identity, I would see the more excellent way being an ultimate state where these methods and religious paths or no longer a crutch for the mind to cuddle with dreaming I have found the exclusive/path answer withheld from other cultures through the Centuries until the historic Jesus arrived on the stage to pull the curtain back for the world to see God for the first time,
When it was in Man all along Luke 17:20-21, which is the esoteric mission presented in the scriptures to reconcile that dual nature Genesis 33:4, between the heart and mind going through Divine adolescents Galatians 4:23-28, not a outward history lesson to build megalithic doctrines on that divide everyone.

The desire for unity is good - but should not come at the expense of truth and wisdom. Attempting to merge contradictory ideas together means that you must compromise one or other - and most likely you will compromise the integrity of both. We must first understand what these different religions teach in their own right - and only then can we properly identify points of agreement and contention. A false unity between them does nothing to unify people, but merely throws another hat into the ring.

1 Cor 11:18-19 I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.​

 

[way 2 go]

An individual in Buddhism may recognize that his actions are bad and will bring him harm, and thus change his ways. This is good. But Karma takes no note of it. What has been done will be revisited upon that individual no matter how much they repent and beg for mercy. Karma cannot show mercy, it knows not love.

:think:

:up:

 

[freelight]

cause & effect.......

cause & effect.......

karma which is made up so anything goes .

Its not anything goes.

The law of 'karma' (actions and their effects) is not made up, but very real as far as 'cause' and 'effect' goes. Our dialogue is showing that you still haven't grasped or understood the law or principle of 'karma' which is universal and ever-acting on all levels of existence, wherever any activity exists. Every thought, word, action brings about a corresponding result or effect, and one bears the consequences of such actions, for as one 'sows' that also shall he 'reap', (what measure you give out, you will receive). - the effects may not be instantaneous or in this life time, but are harvested or reaped in some future life-experience when the time is ripe for such to take place.... the seed sown, will be harvested at some point in time. It is wisdom to recognize this, folly to dismiss it.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

-Gal. 6:7-8

Paul evidently recognized this universal LAW. - again, 'karma' simply means 'action' or 'doing'....and the effects of such acts, as they continue to 'condition' one's experience. Only an simpleton would deny the law of cause/effect, since we all know our actions have consequences AND that we are judged by our actions to be 'rewarded' or 'punished' by the nature of those deeds, since the 'harvest' is in accordance with the nature/quality of the deeds.

you using a fantasy called karma saying having good karma will save you
and that the atonement of Christ who is God profits us nothing
that is an example of evil good and good evil

Nah, I'm recognizing the principle of karma for what it is as a law of nature (and markedly here from a Theosophical Perspective). You're prescribing and super-imposing the subject-matter with your own doctrinal over-lay, assuming that 'karma' is some kind of false concept or enemy because it threatens your 'theology' that only Christ's 'atonement' avails to save anyone from their 'sins' since he paid the price for them (basically wiped out their karma). - well,...this is another issue, but again, ....it violates the law of responsibility, for every soul suffers for its own sins and must atone for them as well. This is just and merciful since life is about progress/evolution...moving upward on the path towards perfection.

repentance does not atone for sin that must be your lies of karma speaking
since you leave out Christ who said his blood was for remission of sins.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

A man makes 'atonement' for his life, if you want to use that 'term', by DOING RIGHT....making amends, repenting, changing his life, returning to righteousness. Biblically speaking, 'repenting' has always been the essential way,....returning the heart and soul to 'God'. - religious rituals, props and sacrifices are but 'aids' to orient the soul back towards God, restoring worship.

The blood of Jesus is symbolic on many levels, but no matter how many songs you sing about, or what faith you put into its redeeming power,...your religious path is still one of 'faith'. While a few have claimed I have trodden the blood of Christ underfoot, because of my more liberal stance against the efficacy of 'blood-atonement', I have never denied its symbolic, mystical or occult meaning/value or power for that matter. But my embrace would be more from an Esoteric Christianity perspective, while all the while,...the Spirit alone is Power, the Spirit alone is Life.

in this life people evade it all the time.

To which Solomon always wondered....why the wicked seem to prosper while the righteous were poor or downtrodden. Interesting turn of events eh? It would 'seem' that there is no justice, if we see the wicked prosper and the just suffer,...but by the law of karma there is perfect justice in the universe...since there is all time and space afforded in the play of life for causes to produce effects and debts or balances to be compensated.

But God will Judge everyone
Heb_10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay."

Yes, the law has within it its own compensation.....inherent in the seed, is the fruit.

How nice of you to let the creator of everything play in your karma sandbox.

On a humorous note, consider that the 'Creator of everything' may not exist outside of the mind assuming such. - but that your actions will have certain consequences and effects, some that can be noticed and others that will not bear out until a future time or unknowable way...this is reasonable and logical....because you reap what you sow.

your god of karma is loving people into hell

Actually karma serves a corrective and instructive incentive to inspire souls to not do evil deeds because of the harm and suffering it brings.

 

[Selaphiel]

There are those who have tried to maintain such arguments, but they are not rooted in scripture - they aren't rooted in what we know of God: his nature, actions, and desires. The position that God is completely unmoved without any variation is simply bad philosophy/theology.

In the first place - we see that God changes in various ways in the scriptures. Consider creation for instance: one one day he creates one thing. Then he stops, and on the next day he does makes something else. And on the final day he rests and creates nothing. Were God some static, unchanging figure this would not be possible. Nor would his heart be so troubled in one moment that he destroys the entire world, and in the next making a promise to never again destroy the world through water. He would not at one point call for all the first born sons of Israel to be priests, and in the next take only the sons of Aaron.

One thing is what the scriptures say. That and a philosophically coherent theology are not the same thing. I would also contend that the scriptures present a one clear coherent conception of God. The various books of the Bible do not necessarily agree theologically, just as there are many different Christologies in the New testament: Adoptionist Christology in Mark, Christology from the conception of birth in Matthew, Christ as fully made Son of God in the resurrection in Luke-Acts, Christ as the pre-existent Logos in John, Christ at least a pre-existent being in Paul (though not using the conceptual framework of Logos).

The second question is (and an ancient one) is whether a literalist reading of the portrayal of God in the Bible is possible intellectually speaking. Can we really say that God gets furious and flies off the handle (the Hebrew literally says that he wrinkles his nose, and that he is long nosed so the fury cools off before it erupts out of his nostrils). Can we say that God literally came down onto a mountain on Sinai? There are not obvious answers to these questions. You may of course claim that you have to read them literally, but then someone might say to you that are believing in something that is intellectually bankrupt.

There are those who have tried to maintain such arguments, but they are not rooted in scripture - they aren't rooted in what we know of God: his nature, actions, and desires.

Do you know them about God or do you know that that is how the scriptures (read literally) describe God? One would need a whole lot of rational justification to link those two.

There is not honest way to approach the scriptures and maintain that God is unmoved. They have poorly interpreted the scriptures which talk about God's nature not changing and over applied it to create nonsensical contradictions.

Of course there is, it would be an allegorical approach. Literal and honest are not necessarily the same. Then I could say that there is no honest way to approach the scriptures in which the world is not a flat disc with a literal underworld and sub-terranean waters of chaos and a cheeselid shaped solid firmament above with small celestial lights lodged into them (small relative to actual stars at least) and God's throne literally above that.

Furthermore, just from a philosophical perspective the idea that if one changes then one cannot be perfect is fundamentally flawed. We know of numerous instances where flexibility/adaptability to the conditions makes one stronger than being rigid. Indeed - it is usually the case that adaptability is superior to something that is unbending.

They would argue that that is anthropomorphic. Perfection would not need to change to adapt. They would argue that perfection is a fulfilled state, that you postulate that God in one way or another needs creation to fully realize Godself. That is, you claim that there is potentiality in God and to claim that there is potentiality in God. Perfection according to them is pure actuality, potentiality is imperfection per definition. That is, realization of potentiality would mean either: 1) God moves from being perfect to less perfect. 2) God moves toward perfection, hence God isn't perfect.

The scriptures themselves teach that there are times for all things in their turn: a time for sowing and a time for reaping, a time for peace and a time for war, etc. Does not the tree that is able to bend in the wind survive the storm? Does not a diverse genome make for a stronger species? Is not compassion and forgiveness superior to a rigid, unmerciful justice system? Change does not necessarily equate to imperfection - but rather, the inability to change can make one weak and ill suited to handle changing conditions

Once again, they would simply claim that such a description of God is anthropomorphic, that you conceive of God as a limited being. A diverse genome makes for a stronger species. A perfect genome with all possibilities actualized would not need to adapt to its environment, it would be unmoved by change in its environment.

I think the unmoved mover is problematic myself. But reference to a literal reading of the scriptures as a doctrine of God is a non-starter of a solution.

My point is simply that you cannot ignore the vast majority of theological history and how it spoke of God and thus of perfect love if you are going to give a meaningful description of the Christian conception of love. You have a bit of a tendency of a certain fallacy that is quite typical when people approach religion, the genetic fallacy: That the original form is the only correct form. Even if you want to argue that that must be the case, you also would have to deal with a rather serious problem related to hermeneutics and epistemology. We do not have unadulterated access to that understanding, we receive the texts and tradition through our own faculties of interpretation, we are not neutral observers. Read about Gadamer's hermeneutics for a relatively simple introduction. I do not think that there is any way back from the hermeneutical shift in human knowledge.

With that in mind. Setting up Christianity (TM) and Buddhism (TM) as polar opposites doesn't really do much, it very quickly devolves into polemics. In a pluralistic age we will gain far more from trying to approach other traditions with open minds (that is, not with the mindset that one of these must be 100% correct and the others must then be 100% wrong). I'm tempted by a Barthian purely from above approach to Christianity at times myself, but upon critical reflectioin it too often ends in secterianism, sealing off ones religion from the actual world. Of course, one has to balance this with maintaining the particularity of Christianity as well, one cannot abandon the thought of revelation either. Theology is a complicated discipline that really has to consider an awful lot of other disciplines.

 

[Zeke]

The desire for unity is good - but should not come at the expense of truth and wisdom. Attempting to merge contradictory ideas together means that you must compromise one or other - and most likely you will compromise the integrity of both. We must first understand what these different religions teach in their own right - and only then can we properly identify points of agreement and contention. A false unity between them does nothing to unify people, but merely throws another hat into the ring.

1 Cor 11:18-19 I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.​

The problem with knowing the original intent of what they were meant to teach is as varied as the christian religion and the shady historical assumptions behind it, The early stages had a diverse pool of fish in it until Rome decided to pull the plug through deceit and force, But all that aside there is still some meat in the message that merges with other religions that predated it.

I get the need to be religiously/doctrine correct, a veil to thin to detect while its being worn by the converts looking outside the Kingdom.

The "Way" starts inwardly, the shadows of the outward are symbolic and temporal no matter what ever divisional marque they march under they are only tools to awaken the Divine Nature in man controlled by a persona created in the mind.

 

[csuguy]

The problem with knowing the original intent of what they were meant to teach is as varied as the christian religion and the shady historical assumptions behind it, The early stages had a diverse pool of fish in it until Rome decided to pull the plug through deceit and force, But all that aside there is still some meat in the message that merges with other religions that predated it.

There are many different interpretations out there- but that does not mean that we can't arrive at a solid, logical interpretation that is consistent with the scriptures. But arriving at such a view requires a lot of study and debate- it requires persistence on your part. But God is good and promises that if you seek him with all your heart and soul that you will find him.

I get the need to be religiously/doctrine correct, a veil to thin to detect while its being worn by the converts looking outside the Kingdom.

The "Way" starts inwardly, the shadows of the outward are symbolic and temporal no matter what ever divisional marque they march under they are only tools to awaken the Divine Nature in man controlled by a persona created in the mind.

Of course what truly matters is what is in one's heart- not merely what one outwardly claims to believe. But that does not mean that beliefs are irrelevant. Beliefs are what frame our understanding of the world, and they serve as guides for our actions. Proper belief allows us to properly act on our desires, good or ill. Furthermore, belief has the ability to change the heart.

 

[PureX]

There are indeed many views of karma. For example, in Jainism karma is considered to be a 'cosmic dirt' that is attracted to the vibrations of the soul that are caused by the activities of the mind, body, and speech. It is more of a physical substance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma)

When I speak of karma in this thread I'm referring specifically about Karma as understood generally by Buddhism. There is a lot of overlap between Buddhism and Hinduism, though I'm not studied enough on Hinduism to say whether or not they have identical conceptions of karma

My guess is that view of karma works more like spiritual currency, with gains and losses that hopefully will someday accumulate to the necessary amount to buy our freedom.

I can't entirely discount this idea, as freedom is certainly a desirous prize. But for myself, I have difficulty with the idea that the same 'soul' returns to the physical realm over and over. That just doesn't seem very likely. Nor does the idea that we are all struggling to achieve some utopian state.

Honestly, I think it's more likely that we are individualized 'bit' expressions of a kind of universal spirit/consciousness that is itself struggling to fully manifest. We came from this 'whole' and we will return to it soon enough. And our individuality, along with our 'karma' begins and ends in this temporary individualized state.

 

[csuguy]

One thing is what the scriptures say. That and a philosophically coherent theology are not the same thing. I would also contend that the scriptures present a one clear coherent conception of God. The various books of the Bible do not necessarily agree theologically, just as there are many different Christologies in the New testament: Adoptionist Christology in Mark, Christology from the conception of birth in Matthew, Christ as fully made Son of God in the resurrection in Luke-Acts, Christ as the pre-existent Logos in John, Christ at least a pre-existent being in Paul (though not using the conceptual framework of Logos).

I agree that merely knowing what the scriptures literally say is not the same thing as a coherent theology. However, a theological system must be rooted - at least in part - in the scriptures. They record the history of man's interactions with God, they record God's promises and prophecies, and God's teachings for us. Even if you favor learning these things through other mediums like the Church Fathers - the Church Fathers themselves heavily based their views off of the scriptures, and demanded that others present their arguments from the scriptures.

You say that the different works of the scriptures present different Christologies - but this is because you fail to see how they complement one another. They are not different Christologies - merely different aspects of the same Christology. Each author focused on different things in accordance with his intended audience and the thrust of his message - but they all preached the same Gospel about the same Christ and the same God.

1 Cor 1:12-13 One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?​

The second question is (and an ancient one) is whether a literalist reading of the portrayal of God in the Bible is possible intellectually speaking. Can we really say that God gets furious and flies off the handle (the Hebrew literally says that he wrinkles his nose, and that he is long nosed so the fury cools off before it erupts out of his nostrils). Can we say that God literally came down onto a mountain on Sinai? There are not obvious answers to these questions. You may of course claim that you have to read them literally, but then someone might say to you that are believing in something that is intellectually bankrupt.

I do not maintain that one must read every little thing in the scriptures literally. To the contrary, one must study the scriptures in context to know whether a passage should be read literally, figuratively, etc. One must also look at the whole of scripture - for the scriptures often interact with each other. However, if one insists on reading a passage figuratively they should be able to defend that that is how it was intended to be read based upon the context - and not simply because it is easier for them to accept. That is an intellectually bankrupt practice - to interpret passages figuratively simply because they conflict with your pre-conceived notions, though the passage taken in context doesn't support it.

Do you know them about God or do you know that that is how the scriptures (read literally) describe God? One would need a whole lot of rational justification to link those two.

The scriptures are a record of man's interactions with God - they teach of his will, his character, his desires, etc. Even if you say they are imperfect due to man's influence - yet they are the best and most accurate source of information available to us. You may reject them - but then you are left with nothing to establish your own views in any meaningful sense.

As for the need for rational justification to link one to the other - that all depends upon who you are discussing these matters with. A Christian generally does not need to establish the authority of Christ to another Christian, for instance - it is a commonly accepted belief and so there is no need to go in-depth on that point. Nor do two mathematicians need to re-establish every theorem for one another in their discussions, nor do two scientists need to re-establish every scientific theory and law. In depth discussions of such points only need occur where there is conflict over them.

I've addressed you as a Christian thus far and so felt no need to go into such details. I understand that you prefer your denominations traditions to the truths of scripture - but even then you should understand the foundational role that the scriptures play in the faith - both of Christianity in general and of your sect specifically. However, the way you are speaking here it is as if you completely reject the scriptures in any meaningful sense - and if this is the case you are rejecting the roots of Christianity and replacing it for man-made nonsense. For what can you replace the scriptures with as a basis for your understanding of the faith?

Of course there is, it would be an allegorical approach. Literal and honest are not necessarily the same. Then I could say that there is no honest way to approach the scriptures in which the world is not a flat disc with a literal underworld and sub-terranean waters of chaos and a cheeselid shaped solid firmament above with small celestial lights lodged into them (small relative to actual stars at least) and God's throne literally above that.

Using the allegorical approach anywhere and everywhere is as equally intellectually dishonest as attempting the interpret the scriptures literally at all times. The proper approach is to study the scriptures to understand what they say in and of themselves - with no pre-conceived notions or agendas guiding your hand. You must study each passage in context to discern its meaning, and not dismiss what you find because it conflicts with your pre-conceived notions.

They would argue that that is anthropomorphic. Perfection would not need to change to adapt. They would argue that perfection is a fulfilled state, that you postulate that God in one way or another needs creation to fully realize Godself. That is, you claim that there is potentiality in God and to claim that there is potentiality in God. Perfection according to them is pure actuality, potentiality is imperfection per definition. That is, realization of potentiality would mean either: 1) God moves from being perfect to less perfect. 2) God moves toward perfection, hence God isn't perfect.

They can define and assert whatever they like - but at the end of the day it is empty sophistry with no basis in anything but themselves. It is an empty and vain philosophy which contradicts that which they are attempting to describe: God.

Once again, they would simply claim that such a description of God is anthropomorphic, that you conceive of God as a limited being. A diverse genome makes for a stronger species. A perfect genome with all possibilities actualized would not need to adapt to its environment, it would be unmoved by change in its environment.

I was not anthropomorphizing God - I was criticizing the general (mis)conception that perfection excludes the possibility of change. For different conditions call for different things - and that which is perfect must be able to adapt perfectly to the situation to be considered perfect. An inability to adapt makes one imperfect.

I think the unmoved mover is problematic myself. But reference to a literal reading of the scriptures as a doctrine of God is a non-starter of a solution.

I never proposed a purely literal reading the scriptures - you've simply gone and made assumptions about me. It maybe true that some the scriptures that I would take literally you would like to take figuratively/allegorically - and we an explore these individual passages together if you are so inclined.

My point is simply that you cannot ignore the vast majority of theological history and how it spoke of God and thus of perfect love if you are going to give a meaningful description of the Christian conception of love. You have a bit of a tendency of a certain fallacy that is quite typical when people approach religion, the genetic fallacy: That the original form is the only correct form. Even if you want to argue that that must be the case, you also would have to deal with a rather serious problem related to hermeneutics and epistemology. We do not have unadulterated access to that understanding, we receive the texts and tradition through our own faculties of interpretation, we are not neutral observers. Read about Gadamer's hermeneutics for a relatively simple introduction. I do not think that there is any way back from the hermeneutical shift in human knowledge.

I'm not ignoring anything - I've addressed the fallacious view you put forward, which you yourself do not accept apparently. As for the 'genetic fallacy' - it is true that the original form of something is not always the best form. However, in other cases it is - depends upon what you are talking about. When it comes to the teachings of Christianity - the original often is better than later versions, especially since the later versions aren't attempting to be novel but purport to be representative of Christ's teachings and the teachings of the early church.

The fundamental teachings of Christianity are not something need to evolve, not something that can be bettered by change. On auxiliary issues there is room for debate and flexibility for differing views between fellow Christians. However, there are core concepts, teachings, and values that form the very basis of Christianity and what it means to be a Christian - you can't compromise on these things and still be Christian. Like belief in God Almighty and in Jesus and his Gospel. What precisely falls into this group of concepts, teachings and values can be debated a little bit - but the fact that there are such core beliefs is indisputable.

With that in mind. Setting up Christianity (TM) and Buddhism (TM) as polar opposites doesn't really do much, it very quickly devolves into polemics. In a pluralistic age we will gain far more from trying to approach other traditions with open minds (that is, not with the mindset that one of these must be 100% correct and the others must then be 100% wrong). I'm tempted by a Barthian purely from above approach to Christianity at times myself, but upon critical reflectioin it too often ends in secterianism, sealing off ones religion from the actual world. Of course, one has to balance this with maintaining the particularity of Christianity as well, one cannot abandon the thought of revelation either. Theology is a complicated discipline that really has to consider an awful lot of other disciplines.

Presenting Christianity and Buddhism as opposites doesn't need an agenda - I merely pointed that out as a matter of fact. But it does do good - it helps do away with the non-sensical position that all religions are the same, with the same teachings and goals. This helps prevent people from blindly mixing and matching beliefs as if religion were a buffet - pick and choose whatever pleases you!

If you are truly a Christian then you should understand that Christianity is not just another philosophy - but that being a Christian means to follow the teachings and example of Christ, the Son of God Almighty. You understand that our task is fight for the hearts and minds of people so that they might be saved and reconciled to God. Saying that this is equivalent with any belief system out there and that we should just combine them demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and/or faith on your part.

2 Cor 10:3-5 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.​

I'm not against recognizing where Christianity and other forms of belief TRULY correlate and agree - what I am against is FALSE unity which only serves to dillute Christianity and draw people away from God and from truth

 

[freelight]

Controlling your 'karma'......

Controlling your 'karma'......

My guess is that view of karma works more like spiritual currency, with gains and losses that hopefully will someday accumulate to the necessary amount to buy our freedom.

Kinda like checks and balances, where we can pay our debts and then strive to live our lives debt-free.

I can't entirely discount this idea, as freedom is certainly a desirous prize. But for myself, I have difficulty with the idea that the same 'soul' returns to the physical realm over and over. That just doesn't seem very likely. Nor does the idea that we are all struggling to achieve some utopian state.

Well,....different views of the mechanics of 'rebirth' exist,...varying upon the terms and definition of what comprises a 'soul', what parts of that 'soul' are 'immortal' (imperishable) and 'mortal' (perishable)...as 'man' seems to be a compound of both. Furthermore, what aspects of personality are carried on in the process of rebirth, or is an entirely new 'personality' born and developed during each new incarnation? We were covering the different schools on this in our last 'Reincarnation' threads (which are no longer extant) so may have to revive our coverage on it :think:

Honestly, I think it's more likely that we are individualized 'bit' expressions of a kind of universal spirit/consciousness that is itself struggling to fully manifest. We came from this 'whole' and we will return to it soon enough. And our individuality, along with our 'karma' begins and ends in this temporary individualized state.

Ah,...a lot here, and it carries over into how we allegorically interpret the soul's journey thru multiple life experiences. Also,...if we are individualized units of a greater Universal Consciousness,....then that Universal Mind or Consciousness is living/experiencing life in every possible dimension and limitation thru us (or even as us), as a manifold 'interface' within Creation. We are multiple points of reflection/refraction of the one universal Light, individual spirit-offspring of One Universal Father-Mother. Of course we can explore these metaphors and archetypes further....as they all relate. It appears that Creation itself is Deity extending itself in space-time undergoing the limitations thereof to unfold creative potential within dimensionality and form, as a creative play, an adventure of possibility. Hence universal consciousness is engaging in a cosmic drama of karma (action). As long as it continues to unfold (potentials becoming actuals, actuals giving birth to new potentials), the currents of cause & effect continue on.........

 

[way 2 go]

Its not anything goes.

The law of 'karma' (actions and their effects) is not made up, but very real as far as 'cause' and 'effect' goes. Our dialogue is showing that you still haven't grasped or understood the law or principle of 'karma' which is universal and ever-acting on all levels of existence, wherever any activity exists. Every thought, word, action brings about a corresponding result or effect, and one bears the consequences of such actions, for as one 'sows' that also shall he 'reap', (what measure you give out, you will receive). - the effects may not be instantaneous or in this life time, but are harvested or reaped in some future life-experience when the time is ripe for such to take place.... the seed sown, will be harvested at some point in time. It is wisdom to recognize this, folly to dismiss it.

it is like a math formula where there is no certain values to the equation

karma
kill a person -1 could be -10 , -113 who knows or
a + again who knows its made up

fornicate and have a child +1 = even ... or not

any unexplained bad things happen to you well the made up explanation for that
it is because of past lives

Paul evidently recognized this universal LAW. - again, 'karma' simply means 'action' or 'doing'....and the effects of such acts, as they continue to 'condition' one's experience. Only an simpleton would deny the law of cause/effect, since we all know our actions have consequences AND that we are judged by our actions to be 'rewarded' or 'punished' by the nature of those deeds, since the 'harvest' is in accordance with the nature/quality of the deeds.

Paul knew the law mosaic that is
Php 3:5 I was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews. As regards the Law, I was a Pharisee;


good works in the flesh will profit you nothing
Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Nah, I'm recognizing the principle of karma for what it is as a law of nature (and markedly here from a Theosophical Perspective). You're prescribing and super-imposing the subject-matter with your own doctrinal over-lay, assuming that 'karma' is some kind of false concept or enemy because it threatens your 'theology' that only Christ's 'atonement' avails to save anyone from their 'sins' since he paid the price for them (basically wiped out their karma). - well,...this is another issue, but again, ....it violates the law of responsibility, for every soul suffers for its own sins and must atone for them as well. This is just and merciful since life is about progress/evolution...moving upward on the path towards perfection.

not assuming karma is lie , karma is a lie
there is hardly any justice in this world which is what karma preaches
sowing and reaping ,justice
and when we don't see this and the lie is pointed out
karma lies and uses past lives lie to explain why we don't see karma

A man makes 'atonement' for his life, if you want to use that 'term', by DOING RIGHT....making amends, repenting, changing his life, returning to righteousness. Biblically speaking, 'repenting' has always been the essential way,....returning the heart and soul to 'God'. - religious rituals, props and sacrifices are but 'aids' to orient the soul back towards God, restoring worship.

I think you confused Christianity with alcoholics anonymous

free gift

Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The blood of Jesus is symbolic on many levels, but no matter how many songs you sing about, or what faith you put into its redeeming power,...your religious path is still one of 'faith'. While a few have claimed I have trodden the blood of Christ underfoot, because of my more liberal stance against the efficacy of 'blood-atonement', I have never denied its symbolic, mystical or occult meaning/value or power for that matter. But my embrace would be more from an Esoteric Christianity perspective, while all the while,...the Spirit alone is Power, the Spirit alone is Life.

Your the one facing eternal conscious torment

Joh_14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

or

Rev_22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."

To which Solomon always wondered....why the wicked seem to prosper while the righteous were poor or downtrodden. Interesting turn of events eh? It would 'seem' that there is no justice, if we see the wicked prosper and the just suffer,...but by the law of karma there is perfect justice in the universe...since there is all time and space afforded in the play of life for causes to produce effects and debts or balances to be compensated.

the lie of reincarnation

Actually karma serves a corrective and instructive incentive to inspire souls to not do evil deeds because of the harm and suffering it brings.

actually karma says let people suffer so they can pay off their bad karma

Luk 10:36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?"
Luk 10:37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise."

 

[csuguy]

My guess is that view of karma works more like spiritual currency, with gains and losses that hopefully will someday accumulate to the necessary amount to buy our freedom.

I can't entirely discount this idea, as freedom is certainly a desirous prize. But for myself, I have difficulty with the idea that the same 'soul' returns to the physical realm over and over. That just doesn't seem very likely. Nor does the idea that we are all struggling to achieve some utopian state.

Honestly, I think it's more likely that we are individualized 'bit' expressions of a kind of universal spirit/consciousness that is itself struggling to fully manifest. We came from this 'whole' and we will return to it soon enough. And our individuality, along with our 'karma' begins and ends in this temporary individualized state.

Yea that's a bit different from the Buddhist conception. They don't want to build up karma - even good karma - for that keeps them in samsara.

So you hold more of a pantheistic view of the world then? Interesting. Do you consider there to be a purpose to the temporary, individualized state with respects the 'whole'?

 

[freelight]

my karma ran over your dogma...........

my karma ran over your dogma...........

any unexplained bad things happen to you well the made up explanation for that
it is because of past lives

Let's follow again,....since you reap what you've sown (any acts committed in the past)...some of your 'harvest' may not be collected until an opportune time in the future,...so it quite logical that something you're experiencing now could be the result of some past action, unless your suffering or good fortune is wholly 'accidental' or 'random', but some would question this or allow such to happen very rarely. In any case 'Reincarnation' (rebirth) and karma go hand in hand from an eastern-religious perspective, and satisfies a rational philosophical approach to the issues of justice and personal responsibility. Any life experience you or I go thru, such can be a product of many different factors serving as 'causes' which condition our current life-experience....and we do acts in the present which further affects our future. Our conditions and destiny are in our own hands.

Oh, you can throw in a personal 'God' here if you like,....you're still responsible for your own choices and their consequences. Follow?

not assuming karma is lie , karma is a lie
there is hardly any justice in this world which is what karma preaches
sowing and reaping ,justice
and when we don't see this and the lie is pointed out
karma lies and uses past lives lie to explain why we don't see karma

The fact remains, whatever kind of seeds you plant, you will reap a harvest of like kind or nature. Whatever you are sowing, you will reap accordingly. Actions have consequences,....causal actions have their 'effects'. You can deny 'karma' til the cows come home, but the law remains.

Your the one facing eternal conscious torment

I've spent a good deal of writing against the heinous concept of ECT here - I don't fear it, because I don't believe in a 'god' who would enforce or allow such an abject condition for any sentient being. - its insane.

the lie of reincarnation

Beyond you providing proof for such, I explore the concept 'philosophically'....so 'rebirth'(reincarnation) is similar to 'resurrection',...note the spirit-soul comes back in a new body in both cases,...there is 're-embodiment'. I'm not dogmatic about 'rebirth', I explore and consider it philosophically,...I'm open to it, but have not come to a final conclusion on the matter...but see how it ties in with karma in certain schools of thought.

actually karma says let people suffer so they can pay off their bad karma

Not really, for we are still to serve and assist all souls wherever we find them suffering. Love will act and serve wherever one has need. Love does as love wills.The law of karma is much more merciful than ECT, since the former is JUST in that a sinner only suffers for his own sins, to whatever degree or duration is appropriate, (suffering endures only as long as one is transgressing the law, and only lasts until such sinning stops and is atoned for) ...one is not sentenced or condemned to suffer eternally forever and ever....TO NO END. This is not only unjust, but insane. Its tyranny and cruelty beyond measure. This is what eternal tormentists enivision God as, which is pretty scary.

 

[PureX]

Ah,...a lot here, and it carries over into how we allegorically interpret the soul's journey thru multiple life experiences. Also,...if we are individualized units of a greater Universal Consciousness,....then that Universal Mind or Consciousness is living/experiencing life in every possible dimension and limitation thru us (or even as us), as a manifold 'interface' within Creation. We are multiple points of reflection/refraction of the one universal Light, individual spirit-offspring of One Universal Father-Mother. Of course we can explore these metaphors and archetypes further....as they all relate. It appears that Creation itself is Deity extending itself in space-time undergoing the limitations thereof to unfold creative potential within dimensionality and form, as a creative play, an adventure of possibility. Hence universal consciousness is engaging in a cosmic drama of karma (action). As long as it continues to unfold (potentials becoming actuals, actuals giving birth to new potentials), the currents of cause & effect continue on.........

I don't really see this as metaphor. I think this is really how it is. Sort of like when warm humid air encounters a cold air mass in the atmosphere, and the humidity condenses to become individual droplets of water, and then they freeze to become individual 'flakes' of snow.

As the 'spirit' manifests in the physical realm, it becomes disseminated into many individual forms, each uniquely individualized by it's own physical circumstance. Yet each remains a direct expression of the spirit whole from which it is manifesting … and to which it will return. Carrying with it the changes that have occurred via this individualization, and adding those to the collective/univrsal nature of the whole.

 

[PureX]

So you hold more of a pantheistic view of the world then? Interesting. Do you consider there to be a purpose to the temporary, individualized state with respects the 'whole'?

I think "God" is awakening and discovering/defining Itself, through these physical individualizations of 'spirit' of which we are a small, unique (but temporary) bit part.