Karma .. what a load of rubbish

Karma .. what a load of rubbish .. or is it?

What do you think people mean when they talk about karma and do you believe there is any truth to it all?

 

What goes around comes around?

I believe it. Doesnt happen all the time, but it does happen.

 

Very well said

 

Yep, Karma exists in form or another, for sure. Not in the magical sense, but what the human brain habitually thinks and does, it tends to attract likewise, as stated above. So we do make our own so-called 'luck' to a large extent. Life is as good or bad as we make it, regardless of whether the odds are stacked in our favour or not. Events good, bad, or indifferent are reflected back at us, as both direct and indirect consequence of our actions.

Call it ‘Karma’, call it consequences, cybernetic environmental feedback, indirect cause and effect, or whatever. It none the less exists.

 

I'll open this post by saying that comparative theology is a favourite subject of mine. If you want a short and to the point response to the question, then I suggest you look elsewhere. Similarly, if you want a simple "makes sense" or "nah, I don't buy it", look elsewhere.


You have to be careful how you use terms discuss these issues both accurately and fairly.

Karma: Part of eastern philosophy particularly religious systems rooted in Hinduism.
Karma means "act" or "deed" and is specifically the sum of all an individual has done and will do.

Karma-phala is the results or "fruits" of those actions.

In the simplest sense that what you do, matters, then karma is correct. However, there is much more to karma and karmic teaching/philosophy than that - and that is where it all goes wrong.


Though many proponents of Karma will (mistakenly) argue otherwise, that is quite apart from the moral code that comes forth from semitic religions (particularly Judaism) - there is no connection between karma and "an eye for an eye". There is no connection between karma and "do unto others..."
These teachings come from spiritual systems that are polar opposites of each other.

The teaching of Karma is also quite apart from the classic western societal adage that "what goes around, comes around".

It is nice, though intellectually invalid, to argue that all religions are basically the same, and that the apparent parallels (such as those I dismissed above) show similar or identical basis - but the reality is that they are born out of entirely different and irreconcilable worldviews. To quote the Dali Lama...

As much as I don't share his philosophy, I really like this quote.

There are as many uses of the word karma as there are variations within Hindu rooted spiritual traditions and religions. None of them really stand under close scrutiny though.


Karma does have one foot in the truth, your actions are not without consequence, but beyond that it really isn't a solid teaching.

Karma-phala, I think, needs only a cursory glance to see that it doesn't stand up.
One one hand you have people who visit unimaginable cruelty on the world around them, and yet nothing glaringly obvious is returned on them, certainly not in equal (or threefold) measure.
To quote Eddie Izzard (that guy can't get quoted often in theological discussion - haha)...

...on the other hand you have relatively "good" people who do many good things and yet live a life of poverty and suffering.

So, it would seem that Karma-phala really doesn't come about in this life. An extreme example this may be, but if someone that bad dies quickly after no real ill-health, and the good people get the bad stuff, then Karma-phala in this life should be of no concern to any of us. However, I'm not aware of any traditional eastern teaching that holds karma-phala as something we experience in this lifetime. Though some teachings may suggest that is a part of it, typically the idea is that karma is the deeds and acts of the whole lifetime (and lifetimes) of the individual, and that karma-phala plays out in how and where an individual will reincarnate.

That brings up the issue of karma-phala in subsequent lives, an issue that would take up a huge amount of space and time to discuss, something I don't want to do... rather I'll post a summary... It's an idea I hold in even lower regard than karma-phala in this life. Reincarnation... nope, I've read a lot and discussed it at length (just one example was the 8-hour single issue discussion I had with a buddhist friend) - and I'm completely and utterly unconvinced that it has any logical and/or spiritual merit whatsoever.


Phantom...
You're right to an extent, the way we react to our situation does tend to attract likewise and there are many examples that one could give to back that up, there are exceptions too, but I don't think anything worth quoting as I basically agree with what you're saying, to an extent at least.
About odds stacked in our favour or not - a very fine point, and one I've made many times myself.

However, I would disagree with it being called karma. What you're talking about exists, but what you're talking about is not karma, nor is it karma-phala.


A fun topic - apologies to anyone who really dislikes long posts, (if that's the case then I hope you've seen this by looking at the end in hope for a summary and haven't just read the whole thing and got annoyed at the length) but as I said at the start. Theology is a favourite subject of mine and this was never going to be a brief post.


There is one kind of karma (if you can call it such) I do believe in, and it raises its head on occasion. Auto-karma, or if you prefer, instant justice.
These are things like the happy slapper that picks a boxer, the mugger who gets a beating from a pensioner and the person who acts like an idiot on the road, tailgating before an aggressive overtaking manoeuvre, only realising it is an unmarked police car when he passes and gestures to the driver.
I find that kind of "auto-karma" somewhat amusing actually.

 

I had a similar experience when I was younger. I followed a car that was slightly under the speed limit for quite a while. I finally had an opportunity to pass. When I got beside the car, I glanced at the driver. It was a cop with a big grin on his face. I did the only thing that came to mind...I pulled back in behind him. Fortunately I didn't get a ticket because I wasn't tailgating or being offensive.

 

Thanks for a nice read BigShot. Your definition of karma as used in Buddhism is spot on of course. There are many devotees doing extraordinarily painful tasks in this lifetime so that they will have a better reincarnation. That's a nice comforting thought as you work in the fields with a growling stomach.

I'm on the fence about reincarnation itself as there are these exceptional stories of people fluently speaking a different language after a traumatic event such as a severe head injury when these people had no prior exposure to said language. Makes one think of where that came from. Collective unconsciousness? I certainly have no idea.

Anyways, I'll leave this here as I type 5WPM (+corrections) as opposed to your 80WPM. Good and informative post!

 

Buddhists become monks to get opposite,to be gifted off the endless reincarnation circle into oblivion I believe,pretty depressing outlook

Auto Karma http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2zgr_Gg11U

P.S remind me not to argue with Bigshot

 

Aside from being my signature, my grandmother used to say, "every dog has it's day" I live for that.
Disregarding the Buddhism or reincarnation hopefully in this life time anyone who does harm to someone will be punished by themselves suffering. I also believe the good you do will come back to you also, not monetarily but more important ways like healthy children, thats my one and only wish (always) no exception, so far so good.

 

I would disagree. Firstly the two quotes do not belong to a religious system. They belong to Jesus Christ, who wasn't at all religious.

What he is trying to point our by, 'an eye for an eye' and 'do unto others ...', is a balance.

Karma is the sum total of all of your actions, be they good or bad. What you do of good in this life or bad remains as part of your Karma and is carried over to a future life. If you out weigh the good deeds with the bad deeds in this life you will be given a life which offers you the opportunity to redeem yourself. Directly or indirectly to the souls who you have offended in previous lives.

So "what goes around, comes around" is a very good understanding of Karma ... it just requires an understanding that it does not need to be associated with the present life.

Karma isn't a teaching in it's self but part of all true teachings. Although there are some different views as to how it effects the soul in each life. The Buddhists believe that you can return in animal form according to you actions. Anthropologist and spiritualists find that understanding of Karma antiquated and give their reasons, which include the constitution physical and spiritual of all living things.

So Karma helps us to understand why good people suffer and bad people seemingly can live like kings in the physical realm. It puts behind us the rather tedious question, 'If there is a God why is there so much sufferiing' and shows us that we are the makers of the suffering.

That rather gutted the chore of all religions and spiritual roads. No reincarnation!!!

 

I would disagree. Firstly the two quotes do not belong to a religious system. They belong to Jesus Christ, who wasn't at all religious.

What he is trying to point our by, 'an eye for an eye' and 'do unto others ...', is a balance.

Karma is the sum total of all of your actions, be they good or bad. What you do of good in this life or bad remains as part of your Karma and is carried over to a future life. If you out weigh the good deeds with the bad deeds in this life you will be given a life which offers you the opportunity to redeem yourself. Directly or indirectly to the souls who you have offended in previous lives.

So "what goes around, comes around" is a very good understanding of Karma ... it just requires an understanding that it does not need to be associated with the present life.

Karma isn't a teaching in it's self but part of all true teachings. Although there are some different views as to how it effects the soul in each life. The Buddhists believe that you can return in animal form according to you actions. Anthropologist and spiritualists find that understanding of Karma antiquated and give their reasons, which include the constitution physical and spiritual of all living things.

So Karma helps us to understand why good people suffer and bad people seemingly can live like kings in the physical realm. It puts behind us the rather tedious question, 'If there is a God why is there so much sufferiing' and shows us that we are the makers of the suffering.

That rather gutted the chore of virtually all religions and spiritual roads. No reincarnation!!!

 

What happens all the time? When? Where? Answers on a postcard please. Address: Cloud 13, Cuckoo Land, Nowhereland. The Jehovah's Witnesses have better than this on offer.

 

What happens all the time? When? Where? Answers on a postcard please. Address: Cloud 13, Cuckoo Land, Nowhereland. The Jehovah's Witnesses have better than this on offer.

I agree with the original statement. "What a load of rubbish"

 

I thought this was kismet...

 

I thought it was dual-posting day.....

 

Actually it is a foreign word, one we in the western hemisphere have adapted to fit our philosophy. It is a Indian, Hindu religious belief , which in translation everything takes on a slightly different twist, meaning. Just as everything , including the Bible with everyone reading it comes away with a completely different meaning, hence multiple religions. You can't take a word, a belief from another country and adapt it to everyones (world wide)way of thinking it's impossible.

 

I'm not about to waste my time explaining a simple concept to you. Everyone else understood.

 

Charlie, I think your angry and looking for an argument any subject any forum, your angry we get it we all are!!!

 

Without getting too technical, I think everyone here knows what the original poster meant by 'Karma'

The initial responses by both Adrynalyne and LauraR would sum the idea up fairly well for the vast majority of people likely to be reading this thread

Although every term has its own origins, the ideas themselves often become universal. Concentration on the similarities rather than the differences will generally achieve more 'positive' results.

As far as I am concerned, doing the right thing for the right reasons - is reward enough in itself.

Of course if everyone is doing the right thing, then everyone is likely to benefit.

 

"Karma", as some would call it, is very well documented as a principle in the Bible actually.

2 Cor 9:6

Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.

It isn't just talking about seeds and money here. Attitudes count too. Sow hatred and that is what you will get back. Sow anger and that is what you wil get back. Sow love and kindness and the world become a better place

 

Yes, Buddhism does take a negative outlook on life and so does everyone who just said 'f'n Je*** Ch***' right now!

BTW, I couldn't argue with BigShot on religion if my life depended on it, however I will condescend to talking with him. BigShot, if you see this, just ignore the rantings and ravings of a lunatic!

 

...and there I thought Karma was something to do with Chameleons, don't know why

Ah, here's why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Chameleon

 

I think that you will find that spiritualists believe that Christ came because Buddhism failed to spread the message of love. They, (and I), also believe that if there had not been a Buddha, then Christ could not have incarnated into a physical form.

darlene1029 was talking about Karma and the origination earlier on. Firstly, as I think I mentioned before ... Karma isn't a belief of it's own but is coupled together with *Buddhism and other beliefs, *which isn't a belief but a way. It is possible that it travelled from India to China via the wondering monks of that time.

As it is, it is not important as to who 'invented' the word. It is a word which portrays and conveys it's concept in any language belief or understanding. That this or that religion have slightly different ideas of how it all works is irrelevant. The word Karma can not be seperated from, 'actions and deeds', and 'reincarnation'.

 

Thanks for your input, Bigshot. Philosophy and comparative Mythology and Religious Studies were some of my majors at university, so one could fill several forums with those kinds of discussions and debates. All very interesting stuff to me, but I won't go into it all here.

Fair enough about the strict definition of 'Karma' and 'Karma Phala' as in the formal religious/philosophical sense(s).

My comments were more in the colloquial, (and as you pointed out, somewhat inaccurate), sense of the term.

That's why I qualified my post at the end with:-

From Wikipedia:-

 

Actually, not really to oblivion, but to the ultimate enlightenment. While I am not a monk by any stretch, I have studied the teachings of Buddha and find them to be rather relevant to everyday life. The key difference between Buddhism and the aforementioned religions, is that Buddhism is not so much a religion as a set of guidelines to living a fulfilled life and reaching the ultimate enlightenment.

*grin* Born Again Buddhist here... LOL

Back to the topic at hand though, I do believe that people do, in general, get repaid for how they live thier life. While it may not be instant all the time, nor readily apparent, it does come back around to either bite you in the keister or reward you. I have found that almost all of the people who have acted in a detrimental fashion towards me over the last 35 years have gotten theirs in the end. No, I didn't help, but it is interesting to note. A prime example I like to use for this is the Property manager at the apartment complex I lived at many years ago, she evicted me because I kicked in a door to another apartment while responding to an emergency call. (PS: this was with the ambulance squad I was a member of at the time) I happened to read in the newspaper about a month later that she was involved in a car accident and while not severely injured, was hurt. I NEVER wish this type of stuff on anyone, but when you act like that to hand someone a negatively life changing decision, you will get what you deserve in the end.... after all, the insurance paid to have the door replaced and I was only doing my job, I was evicted out of spite, and it came back later and bit her in the arse

OK, that's my $.02 and I'm out.

~C

 

Why not? That is why I put this thread up!

 

Aragon - some interesting responses... I wasn't going to get into this as a discussion but can't ignore what you said - worthy of a proper reply...

First off the teaching of an eye for an eye is most certainly not something that came about from Jesus' ministry. In fact, it is found in the book of Exodus... עין תחת עין‎ is the hebrew expression.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with Karma or balance, but is in fact a restraint. It is specifically to prevent the escalation of retribution. You punch me, i kick you, you poke my eye out, I cut your legs off, your brother kills me, my brother kills your whole family, your village attacks my village.......
The teaching of עין תחת עין‎ (eye for an eye) is a limit on punishment and on retribution. Nothing at all to do with karma.

The only connection to karma is reading that belief/teaching/principle into a system which doesn't believe in it.

Further to the point about eye for an eye and the connection to Jesus... Not only is it not his teaching, but read through to the following verse and his teaching on the subject becomes excruciatingly clear...

Do unto others, while the wording itself might be accredited to Jesus, you need to read it in context. He was elaborating on Mosaic law. Mosaic law says "Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person."
Jesus typically not only clarified the law, but took it to the place it was really meant to be... He turned a negative "don't do" into a positive, pro-active "do".

Both statements are very much part of a religious system and one of them can not be attributed to Jesus' ministry at all.


Your comment that "karma ... is a part of all true teachings" is somewhat presuppositional. I'm not sure what your thought process is on this, but it appears that you are holding karma as a fact which is inherent in all true systems, however there is the very real possibility that karma is in fact false and so teachings that contain it are also false.
I will be honest (if my previous post didn't give this away) and say that I think the latter is the case. There really isn't time or space for a full critique of karma and the teachings surrounding it here, but reincarnation, subsequent-life redemption and so on is a very problematic world view...

Assuming for a minute that karma is real and reincarnation does happen... Taking the view on its own merits...
You are born and build up a certain stock of good and bad karma. You move into another life and add to both of those stocks, good and bad.
In each lifetime you will do things that are bad karma, one more lifetime to make up for it, one more lifetime to increase your stock of bad karma...
All of that in a world where each reincarnation brings you through a sort of mental reset cycle each time (sort of like the RAM in a computer when you reboot it) - from birth until the point of realising karma is "true" and living to build only good karma you will be accumulating a large amount more bad karma...

It only takes a few moments of proper application of logic to the karma and reincarnation issue (particularly the latter) and it begins to crumble. It is quite simply an unworkable system.


In essence, the situation actually becomes more unworkable, and more hopeless when you bring subsequent lifetimes into the equation, than it does when you're just looking at the idea of karma-phala in this lifetime.



The point that really interests me is your one about God and the existence of suffering.
That question is only tedious when you miss one vital piece of the puzzle out, and it isn't Karma. You're spot on that we make the suffering - but that doesn't validate karma. The reason evil people can live like kings and good people suffer, is, simply put, because the evil live that way at the expense of the good, and the good don't stop them because they are wither too good to do so, or too weak.
You don't need karma to aid in the understanding of the situation - just a correct understanding of the concept of free will, the effects it has, and the responsibility you have for your own actions and the way they affect 3 things... You, those around you, and your relationship with the God who created you.


More to come in response to other people - I hit "send" by mistake so wanted to get this part finished and posted so it reads properly for anyone following the thread.


Thanks for your reply Aragon - glad you took the time to put some words down. Much appreciated.

 

Lev - an interesting use of that verse. I have to say though, I've never heard it interpreted that way before.

So, what was Paul trying to say to the church at Corinth?
You're right that he wasn't talking about seeds and money... In fact, he was talking about neither...

Look at Matthew 13 and see what Jesus taught on the subject of "sowing seed" - the seed being sown is the Gospel, the "good news" of the kingdom of God. Specifically salvation through Jesus and what he did on the cross (what actually happened on the cross could actually fill an entire book itself)

So when you read Paul telling the Corinthians that those who will sow sparingly will reap sparingly, he is saying that those who do not spread the Gospel, won't see people converted to the Gospel.


So no, not karma.


If you got that reference from a website, I would advise caution. Something I come across almost daily reading as much as I do about the religions of the world, is a thing I've heard called "proof-texting". In essence a point is made and scripture is used to back it up. In short - when someone quotes scripture to make a point read around it - look at the references to previous places in scripture (any scripture they hold as authoritative, Koran, Torah, Synoptic Gospels, Bhagavad Gita and so on) - a quick glance around the quoting of 2 Corinthians 6 shows just what it actually means and how far off claiming it for money, seed or even karma actually is.


Fun fun fun topic - it's taking up FAR too much of my time though - haha - I should be working now.

 

Augiedoggie and Rikky...
If I seem like I've done a lot of reading on the subject.... I have. Haha.

I took an interest in these things in late 2001, maybe 2002 - and have read about almost nothing else ever since. In fact I'm so taken with the subject, I'm thinking of cutting back my business and going to university to study it. I really like the look of the course at Cambridge uni. If I can get on there I'll be a happy happy boy.


Maxwell - hahahaha
I've not heard that song in a long long time.
Funny thing is I'm using SuSE Linux to access this site now - and the "start" button in there actually has a chameleon on it. Haha.



Phantom - nice to meet another interested party - I usually stay well away from discussions like this online as they just eat up whole days for me, reading over old notes, researching answers and so on - simply put, I'm flippin obsessed. Haha.

In the colloquial sense of the word... Yes and no. I think when it "comes around" it is as simple as coincidence and/or direct results of actions. Not some kind of cosmic force of any sort. People like Joseph Stalin are testament to that.

I don't think I could stretch to discussing it as "karma" - I'm too keen on using the right terms for things - haha. However, as a general principle of "what goes around..." then I do think there's a certain amount of validity to it.

Oh - and I read that wiki on Karma recently. I found that though much of it was referenced, as articles go it was somewhat thin on solid argument. Lots of vague connections equating karma in one paradigm to causality in another and sin/salvation in another, some of which attempt to unite mutually exclusive principles.


Wikipedia is a decent starting point sometimes when looking into something new to you, but on the whole (due to its very nature) it does tend to lack authority a lot of the time.



Aragorn - just saw your point about adapting spiritual views. I'd be inclined to agree. Surprising how often it happens though. I will discuss these things with anyone who will listen and/or discuss, and people from every paradigm from atheist to polytheist, from monist to monotheist and everything in between, all seem to engage in some form of adapting another belief, if only in understanding of it rather than use of it, in order to reconcile it with their own beliefs.

Strangely it seems to happen more than anywhere else when you bring up the issue of Jesus in relation to absolutely any other paradigm.

 

No, it didn't come from a website, it came from within me. And I agree with your literal interpretation of that verse in context of the works of Paul in it's entirety. However, I also believe that the Holy Spirit can make use of verses from the Bible in isolation to the happenings of the day in which it was written, to make it applicable in our lives today and encourage us to be more Christlike. This is how I read the Bible - not through man's interpretation

So while I agree Paul was talking about reaping and sowing with regards to sharing the gospel, verses are often shown to us in a way that applies to other areas of our life other than the original meaning, that personalize it and make it very real to that individual. We all reap what we sow, be it thorugh love and kindness we share, hatred and vindictiveness we put out there, or by simply sharing the truth of the gospel. To stick simply to the writer's intent (although ordained) as the only explanation and interpretation is to attempt to limit God IMHO

And I should be working too

 

Karma? 'Course I believe in it. I get it everyday as long I login and have posts... Wait.

No, I know, it's what I get when I save people. And lose when I wipe out Vault City...

Nope, no idea.

 

Not really my interpretation... That's just what was being said. Maybe that's semantics though so not a huge point. It's not what I'd call a "literal interpretation" - I'd call it reading in context. Not even necessarily context of the times, just the context of the text that accompanies it.
Reading it another way is adding meaning, and if the scripture is in any way valid (and I believe whole-heartedly that it is) then there's no need to do such a thing; "Sola scriptura".

I'm not so sure about that. For a start, how do you differentiate between what a person (including you) gets "from the spirit" and what a person gets from their own interpretation and says/thinks it was "from the spirit"?
The way to differentiate is to go to the verse and see if their (or your) use of it is valid - and you do that with context (which is a mix of cultural and textual context - in this case, both). Moving away from that is getting into shaky ground.
In short - to use a single verse or a couple of verses in isolation to the rest of the text in order to support a point that the scripture in context doesn't make is pure proof texting. That isn't to say that it can't be found elsewhere in scripture - though on this point I'm not totally sure it can, not in the context of the topic of this thread at least - if it can there's no need to re-interpret a verse to back it up; if it can't then it isn't true.

There's really no need to re-interpret verses like that in order to make the bible applicable today. That whole chapter (not just the verse) is as relevant now as it ever was. All it takes is correct (contextual) reading of the bible and it remains relevant without need for "in the spirit" internal interpretation. Not to say that can't happen - but it should always be backing up something already taught or opening up new parts of the word to you - not adding in new concepts.

If that verse needs a way to make it very real to an individual, I would suggest that all that is needed are some other verses...
Matthew 28:16-20 for positive encouragement and Ezekiel 33 (especially verses 7-9) for a kick up the backside would be a good place to start.

Agreed I certainly believe we reap what we sow in that respect - however I don't believe the verse you quoted backs up any part of that other than the latter.

Couldn't be further from the truth. It is an attempt to avoid incorrect use of scripture. You can use many isolated bits of scripture to say things vastly different to what it actually means (simply look at Watchtower theology for proof of that) - the way you can be sure that the scripture really means what someone says it does, is by looking at what it really says.

In fact I'd go a step further to say that to assume we need to interpret scripture in a way other than it was ordained is an attempt to limit God - specifically that he wasn't capable of inspiring a culturally relevant scripture that would remain so today without a need for "in the spirit" interpretation of isolated verse.

See - an interesting thread - it'll do that to you - I'm about to get back to it now and no more posting on this for a good while. Far too much to get done for a night of posts like the ones I made yesterday.

Back to it I think. *groan*



EDIT

Oh and Lev - I just read over that and realised it came across rather flat and confrontational in tone... I was not intended as such - it's gone 1am and I'm just starting work - I've lost a bit of my usual perkyness and flair on these kinds of discussions and just responding. Apologies if it comes across badly - just try and look at what I was saying rather than how I was saying it. It's all meant with a smile on my face and a decent tone of voice.

 

And it was all read with the smile on your face in place

However, you are missing the purpose and place of the Holy Spirit whe reading scripture, and looking from only a theological perspective. How do you tell the difference between own interpretation and from the Spirit? A personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It's very simple

EDIT

Also said with big smile on face - I just got done with my shift

 

BigShot.

I don't really feel myself worthy to represent such a great document both spiritual and historically such as the bible, but I believe that I should at least attempt to reply to your post as best I can.

As you know, the gospels have all shown an undeniable amount of inconsistency with each other, whether it be the dates, the place or the occurrence. However in more recent times, the opinion is that, it is possible to form a sort of harmony out of three of the gospels, namely Matthew, Mark and Luke. This for obvious reasons, (historical authenticity etc.), has resulted in Johns gospel being 'pushed' behind them by the Theologians.

This has suited the Theologians fine as they strive to withhold and to preach a materialistic understanding of the bible. This is the way you understand, or perhaps I should say misunderstand the bible BigShot.

Anyway, John who starts his Gospel with "When all things began the word already was", is referring to the logos. He then goes on to describe the light or Logos, according to which bible you have, coming to dwell among us."The logos became flesh and dwelt among us"

So if we don't do a lot of interpreting John is saying that a being of the highest order at some stage incarnated in human flesh.

Let us go back to your comment about an eye for an eye. When Jesus, an incomprehensibly high being, uttered these words, was he merely reciting some or another law which a group of rather normal legalists had made to try and limit violence or was he speaking of something spiritual?

Funnily enough you continue to write a fairly good description of a Karmic balance right after you write it has nothing to do with Karma.

Big shot, you wrote,

"the way you can be sure that the scripture really means what someone says it does, is by looking at what it really says." And "The only connection to karma is reading that belief/teaching/principle into a system which doesn't believe in it."

Often the differing opinions on religious debate come down to perspectives. Materialistic verses spiritual for example. I find that there are two main groups, those who search for knowledge of God in the hope to find him and those who search in the hopes of not finding him. A common mistakes is to take one piece of the bible, isolate it from all other relevant knowledge and think you have understood something.

On the subject of Karma, Christ has probably given the best example any one could wish for. He was killed and came back to life .. in the same body as well.

I have to say that having read some of your other comments on here to the others about the bible I am starting to wonder why we actually have a bible? Most of your explanations seem to make Heaven, God and Jesus redundant.

 

Lev...
I'm not missing the purpose of the Spirit in reading... The spirit is what guided the writing of the scripture, it put the meaning in there in the first place. Simply by reading "what it says" gives you the spiritual meaning, there is another side though...
The spirit allows you to understand "what it says" in a way one can't fully without it. It is the spirit that convicts and comforts. It is the spirit that opens up the real relevance of scriptures to today. As for a completely different interpretation of the scripture though? There isn't any need for that at all. If what you see or understand from a verse isn't "what it actually says" with a born-again (or if you prefer, spirit-led) understanding of the whole message - then I don't see how it could come from the spirit.

Maybe if it clicked on a light switch to illuminate that or other parts of the whole bible, but not to re-define the meaning of the verse itself.

The illustration of the sewing of seed isn't something that needs to be interpreted a new way, as it is referring to Jesus explanation that spreading the word/gospel is akin to planting seed. It was an illustration to help people understand, not a teaching in itself. To read more than that into it is to take it away from the author's intent (and in this respect, I refer to the spirit as the author).



Aragon...
You make an assumption about my understanding of scripture that is as huge as it is mistaken. I have not, and do not advocate a pushing aside of John. I do not advocate a withholding. You may not have noticed, but I am arguing against a materialistic interpretation of the scriptures. I'm arguing that (in the case of my discussion with Lev) 2 Corinthians 9:6 has nothing to do with seed and money, but is to do with the preaching of the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. Hardly materialistic.


John1 isn't talking about light. He's talking about the word. I'd be extremely wary of anyone or any version who translated something as clear as John 1:1 as “light”. I'm not even sure what (mis?)translation of the bible says that.
Λογος (logos) is, as you quite rightly said, “word”. Not only is the same word is used in Westcott and Hort “εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος” (John 1:1 – Westcott and Hort & Textus Receptus) but both versions of the greek are word for word identical. Since Westcott and Hort made a point of discarding things that were absent from the oldest available manuscripts that gives this verse practical “rock solid” status. Now, according to Strong's there are several possible uses from “utterance” and “word” to “motive” and “divine intent” - nothing that suggests “light” at all.

Anyway that aside – your exegesis of that verse is pretty much spot on. “Word made flesh”

He was doing precisely that – he recited something written down in Mosaic law and then went further. However, what he did can't really be described as doing something spiritual, not in that specific part. Notice he starts with “you have heard it said” as he was correcting a common misuse of that scripture as a justification for exacting vengeance (when in fact it's more properly dealing specifically with judgment by a magistrate) – it's easy to see a literal interpretation of nonviolence, to see an interpretation where turning the other cheek is insisting equality to the striker. The spiritual side of it is better illustrated by Jesus' teachings in Matthew 18:22-35. (A cohesive whole – not quoting piecemeal to back up points not made)
(also see Matthew 5:17-18 for a very clear point about how Jesus viewed the writings “of rather normal legalists”)

Couldn't agree more. That's why I'm responding to points made about scripture with as many quotes as I can reasonably include without breaking the forum. Also arguing on the whole from the big picture and cautioning specifically against “proof texting” (as I referred to in an earlier post)

Can you explain exactly how Christ (under his own power) raising himself from the dead is an example of Karma (acts/deeds)? Or to keep with the more modern/western take on “karma” - how does it how that what goes around comes around?
Oh and if we're talking about scripture on the point of death and resurrection now – how do you reconcile any of it with Hebrews 9 - in particular verse 27...
“and as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” (Hebrews 9:27)

You referred to the bible as “such a great document both spiritual and historically” - suggesting you think it is accurate and spiritually significant. So, how does that fit? His resurrection in no way fits with the idea of Karma (to be read in the context of causality and Karma Law, not the much looser western take on it).

Why do we have a bible? I think that's pretty clear both from it and from my responses. Nothing I've said makes Heaven, God, Jesus or Scripture redundant – in fact the opposite is true. My responses about the bible were so insistent on proper use of it precisely because I believe it is so important; and because I think it contains the very nature of reality, the truth of our origins, the reality of our destination, the one real and true hope of salvation and eternal life and the correct way to live in light of that.

To read in other philosophies and meanings is to move away from the wonderful (and really rather miraculous) cohesiveness of the Bible – something I realised it had when I didn't even believe in God, when I believed that all religions contained a different part of or perspective on the same truth... It was only when I critically assessed that belief that I realised how it fails to stand up under scrutiny, and despite my lack of willingness to believe it, the Bible stood above all else I've read as a book of true authority (not because of what it is in a social way, but because of who/what inspired it).

And to think – I came on to look for a post I made ages ago “and that's it!” haha. I had a feeling that I'd get caught up in this thread – right up my alley.

Finally got my computer working and at 7am (less than 6 hours time) I'm up to start catching up the 2 weeks of late work my clients are waiting for. Sleep for me.

God bless you all.

BigShot

 

Just looked over that post again briefly and since it's far too late to make an edit I felt I should add this correction...
This paragraph...

Should read...

Can you explain exactly how Christ (under his own power) raising himself from the dead is an example of Karma (acts/deeds)? Or to keep with the more modern/western take on “karma” - how does it show that what goes around comes around?
Oh and if we're talking about scripture on the point of death and reincarnation now – how do you reconcile any of it with Hebrews 9 - in particular verse 27...
“and as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” (Hebrews 9:27)

Sorry about that.

 

Yarp, I believe it!!!!
It also has a companion saying:
"Watch what you ask for you just might get it." :major

 

Bigshot, I have followed this thread and your comments with interest, and like the way in which you consistently back up comments with facts.

Having done a diploma course in the past on Christian Spirituality (brilliantly led by a theologian who now is our Archbishop), he constantly stressed the dangers of putting forth your own interpretations and the need for proper use and understanding of the Bible - an understanding of its teachings and how it is given by the Spirit for how we should live our life.

Thank you for your posts. I have enjoyed them.

Cheers

LS

 

Thanks for the response - it certainly means a lot.
It's funny you should mention your theologian... there's an outside chance that if all things go well over the next 9 months, I'll be starting a theology degree in Cambridge - and (if you didn't know) that's the very same school he went to.

The only other opportunity I'm considering is Architecture - wildly different I know - but I'm a man of wide and varied tastes and interests.

Truth be told though - I know precious little about people like Williams - maybe I'll start reading some of what he's written sometime. My list is growing longer by the day though. I want to read about and from:
C.S. Lewis...
Hughes...
Schaeffer...
Dawkins...
and now Williams...
Heck I even want to read some of the Dali Lama's writings and various others...
Ghandi... Him too.

Gah - just need to get over the current backlog of work and I'll be able to get started properly. I'm hoping to have a bit more free time once I make it into the New Year so intend to pour a lot of time into reading some of the books on my list.

 

Bigshot I don't believe it is the same theologian given your information...my post was done in haste and I've just picked up my edit error...and that is, the lecturer is now our Bishop and not Archbishop. My apologies for that oversight.

It was an interesting course, open to all, so discussions were always mentally stimulating, interesting, involving analysis and comparisons of different traditions and philosophies with different views constantly being presented while always guided by him. Imho, it was an excellent learning experience.

Your Cambridge course sounds excellent...I'm sure you will enjoy it. Nothing wrong with considering doing both different types of courses. I did that course while in another field of work (prior to taking up law). I found his course gave me an energy to cope with a very busy lifestyle while gaining a firm ground and understanding of the values in how one should try to live their life.

Cheers

LS

 

Ah well - so not him after all; still, he sounds like an interesting type.
In fact - his approach sounds somewhat similar to my own. I'm not what I'd call a "theologian" (I've not studied anything like enough to wear that badge - though I suppose by definition... maybe...) but I always find it much more fulfilling and genuine when discourse is open to all, whether pro or con, than when in a closed group where all are already in agreement.
I've always had a respectful, if at times a tad blunt apprach to other beliefs (and considering I started out this jounrey of learning as an agnosic bordering on atheism I include "christians" in that "other" too) and I find the subject becomes a whole lot more interesting when they are considered too. Comparitive theology (as I said very early in this thread) is one of my favourite subjects.
One of my favourite things to do is "assuming that's right" thought experiments and debates. Run with a set of beliefs to a logical conclusion and see where you end up - I find it is often a very telling approach. "Push it until it breaks" would be another good name for it.

Apparently a theologian called Francis Schaeffer took a similar approach. A friend of mine suggested I read his work after hearing me go down the "take it to it's conclusion" path on something and then mailed me "The God who is There" - 3 years later and I've still not got around to reading it properly. At first I stopped as I needed to use a dictionary too often so put it down due to not being up to the book. Now I'd be more than able to read it but just don't have the time.
It's at the top of my "to read" list though. I imagine I'll get it read at the start of the new year.

I thought it a bit odd that someone in NSW would have studied for a while under Rowan Williams, but figured you must have been over here for a while. Not unike Aussies to get about a bit either. Haha.

 

Have travelled many times overseas, but only for pleasure/holidays

Actually "stumbled" over this person a few years back when a friend suggested a week "retreat". Through her assurances that I would get the mental relaxation needed, plus given it was a great location by the sea, I tried it out.

He happened to be giving a couple of open informal lectures there, which I attended mainly through curiousity. I was completely bowled over upon listening and meeting with him. He has incredible charisma, a humble person, he presents himself simply. Very easy to communicate with, is a very logical and analytical thinker, always interesting. I liked the way he presented different philosophies - very open but at the same time gently guides the listener to clear understandings.

He went by his "Dr" title, so at the time, given his plain clothing I wasn't aware he was in the priesthood, (had I known, I probably would have been biased and never would have attended his two lectures )

When I later found out he had courses going, it was a natural step to do it (in spite of my busy workload). Never regretted it either. His courses are now incorporated at one of our universities. He continues as a speaker with his busy schedule...though it's been years since I have attended any.

 

Nice story.
Love it when things work out like that.

I've met a one or two people in the past who fit a similar description, though not theological doctors, they were as you described; humble, open, gentle and friendly people. In fact it was my discussions with those people that got me started on the path I'm still on today (around five years later). It's pretty impressive the impact that such an approach can have.

Maybe you should drop in on him sometime. I'll certainly try to attend if (hopefully "when") I find myself in your neck of the woods.

 

Karma is just another example of people starting at a conclusion and manipulating facts to support that conclusion.

In my own experience people often do not "get what's coming" to them, people who are nice are treated like dirt because they don't understand social cues and people who are manipulative and have a very good understand of social cues get far, like with Hitler and Nazi Germany. And yet dispite the tons of examples around them people continue to believe we live in a "Perfect World" meanwhile money is concentrated on a very small amount of people who are usually jerks and the good guys are poor, when they become rich they turn into jerks themselves or they get tricked out of their fortune by a manipulative bastard(s).

 

Just goes to show you that some people really do live in their own little world

Everyone has an opinion, yours is just as valid.

 

Was that supposed to be condecending or funny? I can't tell because you always act nice to people then you flip out over some tiny little thing (Piracy Thread).

By the way I noticed how my post might have seemed like it said that it is exactly like that the world over and that it's common and so on but it was, I was just giving examples of how the world is not alright and everything isn't equal.