Baraka_Guru

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:

• The owner enjoys the iPod, and that would be taken away
• The owner had worked many hours to earn the money to buy it, and that would be lost
• The owner received it as a gift from a loved one and it has sentimental value to the owner
• The owner shares it with a loved one and would have to explain its disappearance
• The owner is actually a borrower and would lose the trust of the real owner
• The owner has unique recordings, photos, or other data that cannot be replaced and means much to them
• The owner, the host, and others would have to deal with the thought that a guest is a thief
• The owner may find it extremely difficult to trust others as much, especially strangers
• The owner might experience negative emotions that could affect those around them
• The thief would be breaking a law, trust, and common decency
• The thief may possibly need to continue a lie to remain secret
• The thief has obsessed over an item in an unhealthy way
• The thief might feel remorse but might be too ashamed to deal with it

There could be many more. As you can see there is a great number of ways that this act can cause misery to everyone involved, even the thief. This is the reason why the act is karmic. This would be a burden taken on by the thief, being the direct cause of the negative experience(s). Although the thief might not be consciously thinking of these, it is possible that they will think of them subconsciously or over time. This is why we feel guilt. We think about how our negative actions affect others, and we feel bad because we know how others feel.

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

Ustwo

Yes because an Ipod isn't that expensive and if you are caught, even with the low probability it will cost you your friends which are far harder to come by then an Ipod.

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.

Racnad

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.

tecoyah

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

SecretMethod70

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.This statement is a perfect example, if a bit simplistic. When you take that iPod, the next time you go to a party (especially with some of the same people) it's more likely that you'll be surrounded by people who are much more paranoid and skeptical of others than they may have otherwise been. On top of that, the person who lost their iPod may be made to feel more justified in doing the same to someone else. That only magnifies the effect. Whether you are caught or not, whether you feel guilt or not, the act of stealing has broader implications and effects on the world around you that will likely serve to make your own existence just a little less pleasing.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

QuasiMondo

Stealing is stealing, is it not? If you're not going to stop at using an internet service that you are not paying for and that you don't have the subscriber's permission to use, why stop at using an iPod that you did not pay for and that you don't have the subscriber's permission to use? Besides, given enough piggybackers, it does slow up your connection, plus whatever illegal activity you do while on his network puts him at risk of running afoul of the law (pirated songs, child porn, it'll all get traced back to his IP and you can get away scott-free while he has to pony up for Johnny Cochrane).

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

Racnad

It like this way of looking at it. All of these possible effects are counter-productive to created the world I've said I'd like to live in.

I think everyone has been in a social circle that has experienced this kind of drama. Someone suspects someone else to be guilty of something, and regardless of whether the suspicion is correct or not people take sides, the same group spots socializing together, and later people fondly recall the "good old days" when everyone still liked each other.

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.

"Stealing is stealing" is too simplistic. If no harm, inconveniance or extra expense comes to anyone, or if I am not violating any agreement I have made, then then there's little case to say what I'm doing is wrong.

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.

QuasiMondo

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

Jinn

Is murder always murder? Are there not varying degrees of it? Self defense murder is different than serial killer murder, is it not?

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

QuasiMondo

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

Jinn

I've stolen by accident before. I was using a box cutter at work to open a bunch of packages we got in, and then I called out front to deal with a customer. By the time I got home, I realized that the box cutter was still in my pocket. I stole it. Unintentionally.

__________________
"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

QuasiMondo

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

Willravel

No. The theft itself was unintentional, as the box cutter was carelessly left in a pocket with no conscious thought as to theft. Had he kept it, that would not have added intention to the carelessness.

QuasiMondo

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

Bill O'Rights

Ok...now, granted...I'm not the brightest bulb in the box...but I read and reread these two statements about a half dozen times. What the hell's the difference?!? It's the same thing.

__________________
"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.

Willravel

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.

Racnad

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.

debaser

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...

__________________

waltert

how about when people take that sweet nectar from the soda fountain in their water cup...I'm sure that overpriced soda purchases are really one of the only ways fast food companies stay afloat.

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.

Baraka_Guru

It sounds like you are referring to Christianity here. If so, I think this is a misreading. Fear of punishment is related to sin. A religious (Christian) man does good to be closer to God (i.e. to feel divine grace), not out of fear. The idea of fire and brimstone and an unforgiving and wrathful God is mostly Old Testament. There is some of this in the New Testament too, but it is more related to what would be your fate if you are sinful. It's more or less an allegory that states: Your fate will be like the Devil's if you align with him (i.e. doing evil will have bad results).

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

Willravel

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.

Baraka_Guru

Yeah, it's kinda like the legal system.

__________________
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

abaya

No, come on Will... Baraka's got it right here. True Christians don't obey God's "rules" out of fear that they're going to hell... they believe that by accepting Jesus into their heart, they've been forgiven all their sins and saved from hell. That scripture you're quoting is actually saying that if people do NOT accept Jesus, then yes, they will go to hell... but if they do accept him, they no longer have to act in fear. The point of being a Christian is to draw near to God out of love and a desire to obey, not fear of going to hell. At least, that was my 2 cents of understanding...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Ourcrazymodern?

At least two real numbers:

You are one.

We are one.

If we could remember this we'd have morality.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Willravel

That's dangerous language. This suggests your interpretation of the bible is correct and someone else's interpretation is wrong. There are plenty of deeply faithful Christians who would call themselves "true Christians" who attempt to do the right thing in order to get into heaven.

filtherton

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.

albania

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)

debaser

You can argue semantics all day, but I stand by my statement.

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.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

Although I would love to argue semantics, I don't think we should cross that bridge, so let's avoid that. But, on the other hand, perhaps if we do take the time to look into the meaning of what you are saying, I can better understand it.

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

Plan9

The concepts of good and evil flip sides all the time on a long enough timeline.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

abaya

No, Will, I did not say that "my interpretation was correct," especially since I don't particularly believe in the Bible anymore (a fact which I thought was a foregone conclusion, given every other thread I've posted on). I specifically said that this was MY 2 cents of understanding, not anyone else's.

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

QuasiMondo

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

abaya

Well, the latter is probably a pretty strong motivation for a lot of religious (and secular!) people, actually... especially when all your actions might be on display for an entire community (church, Republicans, etc) to see and criticize. You might not be going to hell, but going to social or political hell for the rest of your earthly life might not be so fun either.

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... Why is it always assumed that the only reason people obey laws is out of fear?

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

QuasiMondo

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

Racnad

Some people believe that religion makes people more moral. Others point out all of the pain & violence that has been motivated by religion. It's been my belief for a while that religion is a reflection of the person who practices it. People who are inclined to acheive their gaols through violence or deception use religion to justify their behvoir, while altruistic people have more altruistic interpretations of religion.

abaya

Yeah, and to some extent I agree with you (only because I am now a secularist and no longer live according to Christian doctrine).

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

Mith

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

QuasiMondo

Is there any advantage to making God happy?

__________________
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

debaser

If He is happy, then He is not turning you into a pillar of salt...

__________________

QuasiMondo

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