09-05-2007, 04:36 PM | #41 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Karma in a nutshell
A helpful way of viewing karma is to avoid thinking of it as a metaphysical "other" that happens to you as an economic system of exchange. Thinking in those terms makes it easier for us to pass on the idea of such a system, thinking that it is entirely possible that it doesn't exist at all.
A more constructive way of approaching karma is to think of it in real terms. Karma can be our way of examining the cause and effect of our actions. Actions, whether they are small or extreme, have consequences or outcomes. That is the nature of action; it warrants a reaction, an effect. The sum of these outcomes is what we call karma. In Buddhist thought, karma is believed to be cumulative and can be carried from life to life. But even within a single life, karma can have a detrimental effect. Misery is a state that arises as a result of karma. Whether it is carried forth from previous lives or it was accumulated in a single life doesn't matter. What matters is that misery is a real state; it is something we all experience, yet not all of us understand it. Only by working toward awareness can we learn about our suffering and how it comes about through karma. But what can we do? Do we just "let karma get you"? The answer, actually, is just the opposite. The answer is dharma. Dharma is rooted in both thought and action. It is what we do to work through our karma and, therefore, deal with our suffering. There are many aspects to dharma, but I will not go into detail here, but I will say that it is possible to have it present in every aspect of our lives. Dharma is what we do to reduce our own suffering along with the suffering of others. To speak to the iPod example, it would be a karmic act to take it. The reasons could be many. Here is a quick list of a few possibilities:
Many actions are karmic. Some are big, some are small. Over time, we accumulate the negative effects of these actions. But through dharmic actions, we can alleviate that state, helping ourselves while helping others.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-05-2007 at 04:39 PM.. Reason: typo |
09-05-2007, 04:37 PM | #42 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Not to mention if the only reason you dont' steal the ipod is you are afraid that god will punish you, I have to question what your morals are. If you rely on punishment to do the 'right' thing you are no better than a child or perhaps as an adult you are just a cowardly criminal.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
09-05-2007, 08:21 PM | #43 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Washington State
|
My response in this situation would be that I would not take the iPod because...
I'd want to live in a world where I could leave my coat in a room witihout worry about people taking valuables from the pockets. Therefore, it would be inconsistent of me to take things from other people's coats. One of the principles I live by is that if it is OK for me to do something, it's OK for others to do it too. I wouldn't want my iPod stolen, so I shouldn;t steal from others. The example of connecting to an unsecured wireless network is not applicable. It is unlikely that your unauthorized use of that network deprives the owner of the use of that network. You can't say the same about the iPod. Another principle has to do with agreements you make with others and being true to your word. When we are at work, when we're customers at places of business, there are contractual, verbal, and tacit agreements in play, and should be concious of them. Don't make agreements you will not keep, and keep the ones you make. In my iPod example, when you are a guest at someone's house at a party, there are tacid agreements in place. You may sit on their furnature, you may use their bathroom, you may use their toilet paper. You may not go through their bedroom drawers, you may not steal their valuables or the valuables of other guests. To do so violates tacit social agreements. |
09-05-2007, 08:27 PM | #44 (permalink) |
Illusionary
|
Plain and simple....causing someone else undo pain is not something I want to do.
.....and I really don't care what anyone else calls it.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
09-06-2007, 12:55 AM | #45 (permalink) | |
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Excellent post Baraka_Guru and abaya. The concept of Karma, as with anything else related to belief systems or philosophies, can be seen through a wide variety of lenses. abaya touched on just one reason I have significant problems with Theravada Buddhism. It is often said by some people that "Buddhism is a philosophy more than a religion." Theravada is very clearly a religion. Even Baraka_Guru's description of Karma, which I take less issue with, is initially mired in the metaphysical with its involvement of "past lives" - something which I can't agree with in the literal sense. Nonetheless, his bulleted list is precisely what I mean when I say you breed the environment you live in.
Quote:
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling |
|
09-06-2007, 02:58 AM | #46 (permalink) | |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
Quote:
You can't condemn one kind of theft while condoning the other just because you don't see the immediate implications for what you're doing.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator |
|
09-06-2007, 06:46 AM | #47 (permalink) | |||
Crazy
Location: Washington State
|
Quote:
Quote:
People sometimes refer to lying, cheating and stealing as being "the easy path." I disagree. If you live your life with honesty and integrety, life is actually easier and more fun. There's no reason to keep track of whom you told which lies in order to keep your stories straight. These's no stress about getting caught, and you never have to deal with consequences of getting caught. Quote:
Downloading childporn through a hacked network puts others at risk, and is therefore unethical. There are free public wireles networks out there, and there are private unsecured networks where the owner may not object to others using. If you have no indication that owner of the network doesn't want you to check your email through his network, then there's no harm, no foul. If you have an invitation to someone's home for a part, there is implied permission to use their bathroom and use their toilet paper. You don't need to ask for explicit permission. There is no implied permission to take someones iPod without permission or notification. There's every reason to assume that would NOT be OK with the owner, and that taking the iPod would cause emotional and financial pain. Last edited by Racnad; 09-06-2007 at 07:13 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||
09-06-2007, 08:09 AM | #48 (permalink) |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
Unless you ask the network owner if he minds having others on his network, how can you know for certain? How can you arbitrarily assume whether or not they'll object?
Think about it: Does an open door to a house mean the homeowner won't mind if I step inside to cool off from the hot sun, even though I don't take anything from the house? Why would my physical intrusion be any different from a virtual one? I can put it to you another way: Would it be less wrong of me to snatch up a busted iPod that the owner had no intention of repairing or using and would not notice or care if it disappeared? After all, it's useless to him, he has a replacement, no harm, no foul, right? It's really not that complicated. Stealing is stealing, whether the emotional/financial impact is felt or not. There are no varying degrees for it and it cannot be negated as a vice on the assumption that the owner won't face an emotional or financial impact over it's disappearance. I could be mistaken, this could be a stretch, but the vibe I'm getting from the responses is that stealing is wrong only if it negatively affects the victim.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator Last edited by QuasiMondo; 09-06-2007 at 08:19 AM.. |
09-06-2007, 08:52 AM | #49 (permalink) | |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
If so, why is there not the same varying degrees to theft? Moral issues are never black and white.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
|
09-06-2007, 09:33 AM | #50 (permalink) |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
There are various degrees of murder based on circumstance and intent. You can set out to kill a person. You can have a severe emotional reaction and lash out and take it too far. You can display gross negligence that causes a person's death. There are ways of intentionally and unintentionally killing somebody.
When you steal an item, you can't do it unintentionally. If you've held a job as a security officer for a store I'm sure you've heard the excuse, "I forgot to pay for it," from a shoplifter at least one time, and I'm sure that excuse didn't fly. Killing a person isn't always driven by intent. It can be fueled by blind emotion, or unintentional consequences. Stealing, on the other hand requires intent. When you steal something, it's already in your mind, "I'm going to take it." Debatable point: If you have a passenger in their car, and they leave their iPod in your car by accident, when they discover you have that iPod, does that make you a thief since it's in your posession unintentionally?
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator Last edited by QuasiMondo; 09-06-2007 at 09:39 AM.. Reason: Changed my debateable point. |
09-06-2007, 09:36 AM | #51 (permalink) | |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
|
09-06-2007, 09:42 AM | #52 (permalink) |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
When you realized you still had the boxcutter, did you keep it, or did you return it to work the next day? The decision to keep it makes it intentional.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator |
09-06-2007, 09:53 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
09-06-2007, 10:17 AM | #54 (permalink) |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
I still find that debateable. Can any item that you forget is in your posession be considered stolen? A friend's set of keys, change from making a lunch run for the guys in the office, a borrowed sweater? How absurd is that?
If it starts out in your posession legitimately, your unintentional failure to return it does not constitute theft. It is not until you decide that you're not going to return it that it should be considered stolen.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator |
09-06-2007, 10:36 AM | #55 (permalink) | ||
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
||
09-06-2007, 10:44 AM | #56 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
The decision after the accident to keep the box cutter may be intentional, but that later intentional theft doesn't make the initial accident intentional. That act of carelessly leaving the knife in the pocket will always be an accident.
|
09-06-2007, 10:56 AM | #57 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Washington State
|
Stealing is a deliberate act. If you return a box cutter or iPod that accidently came into your possesion, there is no moral transgression. If you decide to keep them in violation of company policy or at the cost of a friend's emotional and/or financial distress, then it becomes stealing.
|
09-06-2007, 01:09 PM | #58 (permalink) |
Sir, I have a plan...
Location: 38S NC20943324
|
I feel the need to good for the sake of doing good. The religious man does good out of a fear of punishment.
I ask you who the truly moral one is...
__________________
Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
|
09-06-2007, 01:43 PM | #59 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
I always scold my girlfriend when she does that (I'm the agnostic...she's Muslim) anyway, basically, the golden rule is the summary of how I behave myself. I could have likely stolen thousands of dollars worth of stuff (and money) from my dad's company over the years...but I dont want my stuff stolen, so I avoid stealing other people's stuffs. |
|
09-06-2007, 04:12 PM | #60 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
So, to be more accurate: A religious (Christian) man refrains from doing evil out of fear of punishment, and he does good to feel the divine grace of God. But also bear in mind the idea of repentance from sin, and the atonement of past sins. God is forgiving and has eternal love. Those who end up in hell (i.e. experience eternal torment) only do so because they refuse to repent and/or they refuse God's love, which is universal. Also, your statement relating to doing good for the sake of doing good is too simplistic. It would be more accurate if you said you do good because of the outcome of such actions. Those of us who are atheists would like to say we do good because it is the right thing to do, but if we think on it more, we will reveal more: We do good because of specific outcomes. We do good because we know why it is good. We do good because evil causes negative effects. What's more, atheists aren't the only ones who think this way.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-06-2007 at 04:22 PM.. |
|
09-06-2007, 04:23 PM | #61 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
It's a carrot/stick thing. Do good, get the carrot. Do bad, get the stick. Do good, go to heaven. Do bad, go to hell. If that's not blatant motivation, I don't know what is. |
09-06-2007, 04:30 PM | #62 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
|
09-06-2007, 04:31 PM | #63 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
09-06-2007, 05:20 PM | #65 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
09-06-2007, 05:47 PM | #66 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Eh, i don't know about stolen ipods or what-have-you.
I don't think morality comes from religion. I think religion just offers a roadmap (one that is very often full of errors). A moral is just a highly prioritized rule; don't murder, don't steal, don't fart in a crowded elevator. Greed is moral if your morality dictates as much. The details aren't important when it comes to the validity of morals. What is important is the justification for those morals. I think that being religious makes it a lot easier for a person to justify (or not, depending on your perspective) their morals. "Why shouldn't i steal? God says so? Well shit, i don't want to piss that motherfucker off, he's like, omnipotent, or some shit." As opposed to "Why shouldn't i steal? Because it's wrong? Why? What if the person is rich and won't even notice it gone? What if i need to feed my family? What if they stole it from me first? Fuck that, i'm finna go rob some motherfucker. Or not." Stealing can be moral, if you want it to be, so can the decision to be completely amoral. From my personal perspective, i don't care where you get your morals, if they are either a) closely aligned with mine, or b)not fixing to fuck up the nouns that i care about, then they're fine with me. I guess that's kind of like the golden rule. In any case, they all have arbitrary roots, and as such the inherent universality of any set of morals should be doubted with extreme prejudice. All that being said, i don't think the person who refrains from stealing because of some self defined arbitrary set of rules is any better than a person who refrains from stealing because some deity told them not to. I don't think adhering to your morals is a competition. |
09-06-2007, 05:49 PM | #67 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
The whole argument has one fundamental flaw; it rests on the implication that religion has to be moral. I don't think believing in God would make you a better person if you believed your God wanted you to rape children. So it would seem when religious people announce you need religion or god in your life what they really mean is that you need their particular form of religion or their particular god to be moral.... go figure.
The reason religions tend to be strict or moral, if you will, is not because the idea of a god leads to such revelations, but because empathy is a human trait that displays itself in a myriad of ways. Religion didn’t bring morality to us we brought morality to religion. (I believe this last point was made by a few other people as well, but with over 60 posts above mine it’s hard to read carefully) |
09-06-2007, 06:22 PM | #68 (permalink) | |
Sir, I have a plan...
Location: 38S NC20943324
|
Quote:
I was not refering to hell, but rather the worst fate for a true believer, separation from his or her God (or gods). As for me, I actually try to do what's right because it is right. You are arguing for expediency, not morality.
__________________
Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
|
|
09-06-2007, 06:47 PM | #69 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
You may not have meant hell per se, but hell being a major aspect of a large religion (Christianity), it did make for a good example. It would also be of interest to describe other states of divine separation. A Christian fears hell because there they are separated from God, but what of other faiths? And what if a Christian loses faith? Maybe that is the worst fate for what you would call a "true believer"--becoming a non-believer. I try to do right because it's right. It is because it is. I am because I am. These statements have little value because they are self-evident. It sounds like you are glossing your morality here. What is right, and why? What makes you try? Why bother? And I wasn't arguing for anything--neither expediency nor morality; I was outlining the Christian belief of the outcome of good and evil, and how to deal with it. You might find it interesting that underneath the allegory, symbolism, and ritual that the Christian morality is not unlike your own. I can't say myself, because you haven't explained what is "truly moral."
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-06-2007 at 06:48 PM.. Reason: typo |
|
09-07-2007, 02:01 AM | #71 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
And when I say "true Christians," I am talking exactly about those people who are "attempting to do the right thing in order to get into heaven." That's the only "true" Christian I know. But what Christian is going to argue with me, about the idea that you have to accept Jesus in order to go to heaven, and that once you do so, you are no longer going to hell? Isn't that the central doctrine of Christianity, or did I miss something entirely??? Again, my 2 cents on the Christian thing: the whole point of the Jesus-dying business is so that sin no longer matters... but the effort of AVOIDING sin (not because of hell, but because it causes God to weep and it corrupts the soul, etc) is one of the aims of the Christian life. In that sense, Christians are moral because they *want* to be, not because they are *afraid* of punishment. Huge difference. Now, I'm very open to any of this being wrong, feel free to point it out. (If so, then my whole notion of Christian doctrine was clearly off base, but that's fine.)
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
09-07-2007, 05:54 AM | #72 (permalink) |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
So you're a corrupt soul destined for heaven. If there's no threat of heaven being taken away from you for sinning, I don't see the motivation for staying within moral boundaries besides claiming bragging rights to who's shit stinks the least.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator |
09-07-2007, 06:03 AM | #73 (permalink) | ||
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
That said, for people who truly don't care about shit stinking or punishment or being an outcast, well I refer to what I said earlier... Quote:
And where the heck are the evangelicals of this forum to chime in on/correct what I'm saying?
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran Last edited by abaya; 09-07-2007 at 06:05 AM.. |
||
09-07-2007, 06:18 AM | #74 (permalink) |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
Because laws are crafted that way. When a law is ineffective, what do politicans do? Clamp down on enforcement and ramp up the penalties. Scare people straight and they'll stay within the lines. There's no law that I can think of that will reward me for following it.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator |
09-07-2007, 06:34 AM | #75 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Washington State
|
Quote:
|
|
09-07-2007, 08:36 AM | #76 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
But an evangelical would *most likely* (still waiting for confirmation here) see God's laws as being far different than the laws of the world. "Render what is Caesar's unto Caesar and what is God's unto God," etc. There is no one to "clamp down" on people who "sin" in a spiritual sense, at least not if that person is born again, accepted Christ, and all that jazz. Hell is no longer relevant if one has been forgiven. So then it's entirely up to that person whether or not he or she *wants* to obey... and that makes moral behavior a matter of will/desire to obey and make God happy, not fear of pissing him off. Hence the New Testament.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
09-07-2007, 09:53 AM | #77 (permalink) |
Tilted
Location: Mesa, AZ
|
There is a very good article about this over at NewScientist. You may need to subscribe to view it all (completely worth it!) but you should get some of the text.
I don't personally ascribe to this idea but it is interesting. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...od-is-god.html
__________________
Mith |
09-07-2007, 10:41 AM | #78 (permalink) | |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
Quote:
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator |
|
09-07-2007, 12:42 PM | #79 (permalink) | |
Sir, I have a plan...
Location: 38S NC20943324
|
Quote:
__________________
Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
|
|
09-07-2007, 01:43 PM | #80 (permalink) |
Wise-ass Latino
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
|
I guess then it's all about avoiding punishment after all.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator |
Tags |
morality, nonreligious |
|
|