Something I think bares reading.

[Hyena Dandy]

Karma's a nice idea, but it's demonstrably wrong. It is entirely possible to live a virtuous life, not lie/cheat/steal/murder, and still get kicked in the teeth by life. Look to any war or natural disaster for proof of that. The virtuous die right along with the wicked. And the most damning thing of all: sometimes we have no choice but to be "bad" in order to survive. Some poor kid growing up in a shantytown? They can steal, or they can starve.

That is a misunderstanding of Karma, though its easy to see how you did it. People often call something bad happening to someone who did something bad 'Karma'.

Karma is not supposed to come back on you in this life. The idea is that you go through this life, and if you're good, shit goes wrong in your NEXT life. I.E. A mass-murderer comes back as a maggot, a saint comes back as a prince (Or, well, a cow, I guess, but it'd have to be in India.)

[Ghel]

It seems to me that both the concepts of Karma and of Heaven/Hell are damaging concepts because they convince people to take a lot of shit (or, at least, be happy with the status quo) instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings. It may be a comforting thought that the villain will either rot in Hell or have karma visited on him, but (as Talon rightly pointed out) that's no guarantee that anything will actually happen to him. The only way to be sure that things will get better, or that justice will be done, is to work towards that goal ourselves.

[Talon]

Hyena Dandy,

Ok you've got me there

Karma is not supposed to come back on you in this life. The idea is that you go through this life, and if you're good, shit goes wrong in your NEXT life. I.E. A mass-murderer comes back as a maggot, a saint comes back as a prince (Or, well, a cow, I guess, but it'd have to be in India.)

Actually I was exposed to this idea of karma growing up, the idea of next-life benefits/punishments.
My Hindu parental units were oh-so-smug in their criticisms of Abrahamic faiths for their lack of an explanation of the suffering of innocents. They said that people were being punished in this life because they were bad in their past lives. It sounded reasonable to my young ears.

But I don't buy it now.
For a long time I sincerely believed in the idea of reincarnation, despite the fact that I couldn't remember anything from my supposed past life. And please don't anyone try to tell me it was because I didn't believe "hard" enough. Wishful thinking does not make it so. My point is I think it's incredibly unfair for the Universe, or God, Karma, whatever, to punish someone with a potential lifetime of suffering, as penance for crimes they don't remember committing.

"How can I confess my sins to God, when I don't even remember what they are?" - Brother Theo, Babylon 5

Maybe the Karma idea could provide some short-term comfort to someone scrounging through refuse heaps for their next meal. But as Ghel pointed out, it could also de-motivate them from making any effort to improve their lot in life. Then there's the Snowball effect, or maybe Unintended Karmaic Consequences. As I mentioned before, someone may have no choice to be Bad in order to survive, steal or starve. The history of the oppressed is not pretty. Jammed into the boxcars of oppression, victims turn on each other for survival. Thereby they earn even more bad karma, as if last-life's bad karma wasn't enough. Yeesh this is horrifying, an endless timeless cycle of misery that even death can't save you from

Maybe the universe really is this unfair. As I myself have said, life isn't fair, it simply exists. But that still leaves us with this: there is no demonstrable evidence that reincarnation happens, and with that there's no reason to believe in Karma either.

[Gravekeeper]

Instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings.

Except those two are key aspects of Buddhism. The very center of it is universal compassion for all living beings ( animals included ) regardless of who they are or what they've done. To help ease the suffering of *everyone* in mortal life.

It may be a comforting thought that the villain will either rot in Hell or have karma visited on him, but (as Talon rightly pointed out) that's no guarantee that anything will actually happen to him.

The thing is, that's *still* a basic "vengeance" wish. Buddhism isn't about vengeance. The very act of wishing suffering on another isn't exactly that much better than someone inflicting suffering to begin with. Both are damaging and harmful.

Nrrr, ok, time for work. Will finish my thought later. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

It seems to me that both the concepts of Karma and of Heaven/Hell are damaging concepts because they convince people to take a lot of shit (or, at least, be happy with the status quo) instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings.

Why would you assume that the two concepts are mutually exclusive?

Part of living a good life is based on self-improvement. If you do nothing to further yourself, that's not going to be of any benefit to anyone in this life or the next. You can't help your fellow man if you, yourself, are in need of help.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Right, broadcasting live from the salt mine. >.>

My point is I think it's incredibly unfair for the Universe, or God, Karma, whatever, to punish someone with a potential lifetime of suffering, as penance [B]for crimes they don't remember committing.

I can't really speak for Hinduism, but as I understand it from Buddhism your karma can affect your station in the next life, but does not just curse you to a life of misery or anything. On top of that, the cycle of life is a learning experience, and we must experience all it has to offer, good and bad, if we are to learn. Finally, as we are masters of our own actions, it is inevitable those actions will affect others or good or ill. But at the end of any given life, we will be shown exactly how we affected others before we move on to the next.

In Tibetan culture in particular, your station in the next life is actually partially determined by how you react to seeing the consequences of your actions in life. The Tibetan Book of the Dead for example is particularly fascinating because it is not exclusive to any one religion. It explicitely states that you will see that which you believe in during these moments. Be it God, Jesus, Buddha or the flying spaghetti monster. That which comes to guide you will take on whatever form you expect to see it in.

Which is a rather fascinating perspective for an older culture to have. As typically the further you go back, the more rigid cultures become in regards to this kind of thing.

As I mentioned before, someone may have no choice to be Bad in order to survive, steal or starve.

See, ironically this is not Bad(tm) in the Buddhist viewpoint. Bad(tm) is causing undo suffering. Which places the onus more on whomever is causing you to starve. Now if you and your neighbour were both starving, and he had a piece of bread, and you caved his head in with a rock for it. That would be Bad(tm). >.>

Karma is not suppose to be an inescapable downward spiral, that would make for a self defeating universe. I honestly don't think we can define the inner workings of the universe in terms of our petty morale absolutes.

[Hyena Dandy]

instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings.

I firmly believe in trying to improve my life and the life of my fellows.

The interesting thing about hell is one of the points its mentioned in the Bible is the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Gospel of Luke. (Text taken from Wikipedia, my bible isn't at hand)

Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame."

What the parable means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell. But the key part is that in one of the few places that the Bible references heaven or hell, its about helping people in need.

The Bible doesn't say a lot about improving yourself, but at least the new testament has a hell of a lot about improving others.

[Ghel]

The very act of wishing suffering on another isn't exactly that much better than someone inflicting suffering to begin with. Both are damaging and harmful.

I don't believe in thought crime. Thinking that someone should suffer is not as bad as inflicting that suffering yourself. The only person who might be damaged by thought crime is the thinker, and it would only be mental, not physical harm.

Why would you assume that the two concepts are mutually exclusive?

I didn't say that they were, although, now that you mention it, how do you reconcile the concepts of Heaven and Hell with the concept of Karma (as it relates to reincarnation)?

Part of living a good life is based on self-improvement. If you do nothing to further yourself, that's not going to be of any benefit to anyone in this life or the next. You can't help your fellow man if you, yourself, are in need of help.

I agree, except for the part about a next life.

In Tibetan culture in particular, your station in the next life is actually partially determined by how you react to seeing the consequences of your actions in life. The Tibetan Book of the Dead for example is particularly fascinating because it is not exclusive to any one religion. It explicitely states that you will see that which you believe in during these moments. Be it God, Jesus, Buddha or the flying spaghetti monster. That which comes to guide you will take on whatever form you expect to see it in.

This is a Neat Idea(tm), but there's no evidence that it's true. I would much rather follow a philosophy that is both useful and can be demonstrated to be true.

What the parable [of Lazarus and the rich man] means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell.

Do you really need to be threatened with punishment before you'll do something nice for somebody? This is, I think, one of the greatest faults of the Christian philosophy (irrespective of whether it's true). It doesn't encourage people to be good because it's good. It instructs people to be good so they'll be allowed into Heaven or avoid Hell. That's no more moral than saying, "If you hit your little sister, I'm going to beat you bloody and lock you in your room for a month, but if you're nice, I'll give you a cookie."

[Ipecac Drano]

What the parable means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell. But the key part is that in one of the few places that the Bible references heaven or hell, its about helping people in need.

According to biblical concordances, it's actually about the Jewish people rejecting Christ. But, if one takes it literally to be a lesson about charity, then maybe some good will come from it.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't believe in thought crime. Thinking that someone should suffer is not as bad as inflicting that suffering yourself. The only person who might be damaged by thought crime is the thinker, and it would only be mental, not physical harm.

I didn't say it was now, did I? And you're precisely correct, it is unhealthy for the one wishing it. Not for the one it is being wished upon. One of the points of Buddhism is to try to be above that. Attachment, suffering, yadda yadda. You know, enlightenment. -.-

I didn't say that they were, although, now that you mention it, how do you reconcile the concepts of Heaven and Hell with the concept of Karma (as it relates to reincarnation)?

I can't speak for Christianity, or even really my own beliefs as I don't believe in either location. However, I can put out again, the Book of the Dead. Which has Heaven/Hell equivilents ( amongst several other possibilities including being tossed right back to the animal kingdom ), but they are more sort of incarnations. As in, your next incarnation would be pleasent ( and heavenly ) or a struggle ( and hellish ). It seems to make specifics such as being born into a life surrounded by war or famine. Its an odd book, but interesting. Just....scary thick and badly translated. I own it, but reading it makes me go cross eyed >.>

This is a Neat Idea(tm), but there's no evidence that it's true. I would much rather follow a philosophy that is both useful and can be demonstrated to be true.

The interesting part about it is if you follow along its actually basically describing a Near Death Experience ( and then some after wards ). As the entire purpose of the Book of the Dead is to prepare you for death and try and teach you what to expect. NDEs are near universal in that they come in one of two types: The "Oh I met <insert my deity here> and it was awesome but then I came back and it sucks here" ones. And the "OH FUCK DARKNESS AND MISERY" ones.

Which is rather fascinating as your chance of having any sort of NDE back then was rather remote given the medical science at the time. >.>

Do you really need to be threatened with punishment before you'll do something nice for somebody? This is, I think, one of the greatest faults of the Christian philosophy (irrespective of whether it's true).

Agreed. Obviously, not every Christian looks at it that way. But many do ( act out of fear of Hell, or the promise of Heaven ) instead of an inherent honest desire for the well being of others. I really don't think you can make it too far if you stay within the confines of an "ultimate judgement" type scenario.

[Hyena Dandy]

This is, I think, one of the greatest faults of the Christian philosophy (irrespective of whether it's true).

I know plenty of Christians who think good behavior is its own reward. I certainly do. I help people because that's what I do, not to get into heaven. If I get into heaven, that's fine. But mainly I believe in helping in the name as helping.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't believe in thought crime. Thinking that someone should suffer is not as bad as inflicting that suffering yourself. The only person who might be damaged by thought crime is the thinker, and it would only be mental, not physical harm.

I'm almost of the same position. Except that harming oneself part, as I think that's also bad, although definitely not to the same degree as harming others.

Plus, trying to not think ill of others goes with the whole concept of self-improvement and personal gain.

I didn't say that they were, although, now that you mention it, how do you reconcile the concepts of Heaven and Hell with the concept of Karma (as it relates to reincarnation)?

I don't believe in hell as a place so much as a state of being. And as I've established before, I believe in reincarnation, so Karma wouldn't be incompatible.

I know plenty of Christians who think good behavior is its own reward.

I do "good things" as a mix of altruistic, selfish, and egotistical reasons.

The egotist in me likes being able to make things happen. The selfish part of me likes how people treat me when I do things for others (enlightened self-interest). And the altruistic part of me just gets all sorts of warm fuzzies by making other people happy.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I didn't say it was now, did I?

Well, you did say (and I'm paraphrasing, here) that thinking about committing a crime is almost as bad as actually committing the crime. But I see that you're clarifying what you meant. If I understand correctly, we actually agree. Thinking about causing harm, or wishing harm against someone, is detrimental to the thinker's mental health, but is not harmful to anyone else.

The interesting part about it is if you follow along its actually basically describing a Near Death Experience ( and then some after wards ).

So, you're saying they based their fantasy on a hallucination. That doesn't make the fantasy any more true. I'll still grant that it's a Neat Idea(tm), but that's all.

I know plenty of Christians who think good behavior is its own reward. I certainly do. I help people because that's what I do, not to get into heaven.

But that's not what you said before. You said, "Or else, you know, hell." If you're changing your position or correcting your previous statement, please explain.

I don't believe in hell as a place so much as a state of being. And as I've established before, I believe in reincarnation, so Karma wouldn't be incompatible.

Ok, I can see Heaven and Hell as a metaphor, but you said (in a PM) that you believe in reincarnation based on your reading of the Bible. How do you support that? What passages say to you that Heaven and Hell aren't literal, physical places? Additionally, what role does the Christian God play in a system that includes reincarnation?

[Hyena Dandy]

But that's not what you said before. You said, "Or else, you know, hell." If you're changing your position or correcting your previous statement, please explain.

I was not changing my position. I was saying that that story says "Help people, regardless of their position. If you don't, you end up in hell."

That does not mean I, and other Christians, can't do good things for the sake of doing good things.

I am not changing my position or correcting my previous statement. The two statements are unrelated.

[Ghel]

The two statements are unrelated.

I disagree. "Do good or else you'll be tortured forever" and "Do good because it's good" are competing philosophies.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose you have two children. With Child A, every time he misbehaves, you threaten to beat him. With Child B, every time he misbehaves, you sit him down and teach him empathy. ("How do you think your brother feels when you bite him?") At the end of ten years, both children are well-behaved, but which one is more moral? I think we can all agree that the child whose moral code is based on empathy will be more moral.

I agree, however, that Christians can hold both concepts in their heads at the same time. It's not unusual for humans to compartmentalize their minds in order to believe two or more competing, or even mutually exclusive, concepts. That doesn't make the statements unrelated. It just means that humans (all humans) have stupid brains, which we have to train to recognize contradictions and sort out which one is actually correct (or better, at least).