|
Karma
Feb 2, 2005 13:02:27 GMT -5
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 2, 2005 13:02:27 GMT -5
i think you missed my point. the point was to critique karma you should take its points internally. Its like asking a someone who does not believe Jesus lived to talk about Christ being savior. You cannot honestly critique karma without taking into consideration the entire belief. Karma is self-applied, you cannot apply karma to anyone elses life. Its a belief system that works in conjunction with other ideals. To take one of those without the others...nonesenical....talk about why baptism is important to christians, but dont accept all the stuff about resurection, jesus, or the bible...it will never make sense to me unless i think from a christian perspective. To discuss karma is to understand another's perspective of life... Its not to legitimate yours or anothers life path.
innocent deaths....NUmber one, whose to say death should be viewed as a negative but at times completion of... r u to say that...umm who r u? to talk u must coordinate perspectives...b on the same page. convo is not between u and u, but btween people. u and them.
woh evaultes rt and wrong...is there really such thing as "innocent"
if u look at death as punishment....u tell me who does deserve to die...or how innocent does someone need 2 b to legitimate death? bloody mary? andrew jackson? hitler? stalin? ghandi? mlk? churchill? roosevelt? bush? a new born... at what point do u as a human legitimate the process of existence...at what point do u, a human on this side of existsnce, legitimate what comes next?
the explanation of karma is not to apply it to u,me, or anyone else, but to digest mayb a bit of it so its possible to see aspects of it in our own beliefs or mayb gain more understanding of ourselves or existence.....revelation is only revealed to..... u tell me? i believe revelation derives thru discernment wisdom &experience from the divine.(yes i believe n God)
you may believe that life is not fair...and that is where you personally are...
i believe a more accurate statement is..."life situations dont seem justified"
look at some of the great people throughout history.(i dont know what history 2 use to list people...americans r familiar with bible stories and us history, so the list comes from that perspective) moses samson jesus apostle paul cyprian tecumseh kennedy dietrich bonhoffer mlk etc etc etc
minus moses(who didnt get the reward he had been leading to see) each met their fate with tragedy violence and pain...
is this not rt, not fair...or the fulfilment of just glorious living...balance of existence(yin/yang type) these people did not live for themselves, and death was not final or negative. death was a process, transition to the next state...what state? we do not know. death was a portion of the work...
are u? am i? better than king...bonhoffer? mayb u r and have done more...but im not.
i would argue life is the gift, and existing in this state is our work our process...and understanding the existence is our job. death is transitory, not to be feared, is justified....i cant justify y as creation i deserve the gift of existence and life. especially humanity...to have consciousness...
justice...fair... u could b a spec of dust...but what do we deserve and who owes it to us...
agnostic? what being and y should we get somethin?
atheist? what moral law derives rt and wrong...society does not govern existence but merely functions within it
religious? for what reason does your God owe you, what have you done for your God lately?
hmmm
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 3, 2005 1:01:36 GMT -5
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 3, 2005 1:01:36 GMT -5
I think I missed your point, but the point I see you making here was one I recognized in my last post. That`s something I couldn`t argue about.
They were taken from this world, not saved from it. They may have different views. The afterlife may be a better place. But who says they wanted to die? Who says they welcomed and accepted it? I bet a good deal of them have children with no parents now. Or maybe the people living have dead children. I`m not calling death punishment. But they might.
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 3, 2005 10:02:00 GMT -5
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 3, 2005 10:02:00 GMT -5
you are right....
some people may... everyone may...there is no telling none whatsoever...
but in what way should we have any say in if we stay here or leave here....did u have a say in if you were grounded as a child, or got a beatin, i doubt it...
as people in inferior roles with respect to the motion of existence....how or should we have a say in that, and our lack of say....is that unjust?
the last 3 questions in my last post... to the atheist, agnostic, and religious person.... where did u view that comment?
how do you view or judge a "good" person? what makes a "good" "innocent" person? and in what respect is a person "good" or "innocent" within the context of existence(physical pnuemanal and existential)
isnt it just a perspective of justification... not really with a basis of...rt wrong just or bad, but...rt now this is your or my perspective?
what did u get about the list of people?
how do u, me, we deal with this? and if the question we are asking is wrong....what should the question be?
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 3, 2005 11:43:48 GMT -5
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 3, 2005 11:43:48 GMT -5
Honestly and with no intented offence, it`s sometimes hard to understand your sentances, so excuse me if I don`t attend to some of your questions or statements. I`m also quite lazy. Also, my method of debate as the offense is to punch a small hole in your defensive dam and watch the rest of the structure crack under the pressure, to use a metaphor.
I can`t answer this question, but just because I can`t answer, or if indeed nobody can answer, it doesn`t mean that there is no answer. In other words just because it may not be explainable it doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist. There are good and innocent people. Good and innocent people that got beatings as children that changed their future outlook on life. Children that die the day they`re born. You can`t tell me how karma works here.
We are but small lives in a big world, inferior roles to the motion of existence as you say, but I ask you; if we`re so inferior, why does Karma even exist? What would be it`s purpose? I disagree. I think we play a bigger part in the world than just being at the whim of time and space. I think we`re as much a part of the nature of the universe as we want to be, depending on how much we consider ourselves the center of our own universe. So I can say with confidence that although I cannot say what unjust is, I know what it is when I experience it, depending on how big a role I play in my own life. Karma wouldn`t even exist if we didn`t have these ideas of what is unjust or not. So there are unjust events, like the tsunami, and since karma is the force incharge of such events, everybody dead and affected in a what they consider unjust way has bad karma. How? I don`t know... Maybe karma, the repercussions for your state of being, doesn`t exist.
Unjust events can exist without karma you see, but karma cannot exist without unjust events. Because unjust events happen to innocent people, karma is disproved (as far as this world goes. In all truth, nobody can talk about karma with respect to reincarnation and past lives, because nobody has any real proof. Infact, I haven`t even read any infalliable or otherwise convincing arguments for it).
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 3, 2005 13:04:50 GMT -5
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 3, 2005 13:04:50 GMT -5
as you stated....
I can`t answer this question, but just because I can`t answer, or if indeed nobody can answer, it doesn`t mean that there is no answer. In other words just because it may not be explainable it doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.
you just punched a hole in your own conclusion....
nobody can talk about karma with respect to reincarnation and past lives, because nobody has any real proof. Infact, I haven`t even read any infalliable or otherwise convincing arguments for it)
just because there is no "proof" or "infalliable" argument does not mean it does not exist or is invalid. within certain people's experience and existence they know, they have seen, it is as fundamental as 1+0=1.
no offense taken, i dont write well or with comprehendable syntax...
but i hope u get this...
you ask me if we are inferior beings in the motion of existence, why does karma exist.... it exists because it is reality within people's experience. that is the only reason why it exists, but the fact that it logically and productively functions within someone's reality, brings it into existence.
its function is to guide people who live within its boundaries through the world and to wherever they go. In their view possilby another life, another existence, or possilby divininty... it functions as a possible reality that is real to people who live.
as u said....u cannot prove or disprove. u can just adhere or not adhere.
u keep falling back to your own personal life view, saying you know x or y, because of your experience. the tsunami affected u and thousands of other people in that way, but to thousands of others im sure it has been viewed in differing ways. some slong this line others not...
unjust events can exist without karma for you, but for many it cant. that is what i hope u see.
as individuals we all search for our own reality, and discernment for how we will function within the reality we have revealed to us. your reality saying kharma makes no sense.... is only true within your lens. kharma does not exist to govern your life, but the lives of those that adhere to it. Its explained and shared with me u and others so that we can appreciate the experience reality culture and existence of some of our brothers and sisters on this earth.... who knows, mayb somethn we learn from it will contribute to our world view...
or is your lens, your view capable of legitimating all realities? something from my reality that i have found....what we take as concrete is often unstable, the way we shape and more importantly understand our reality is often but a vague shadow shaded by the barriers of our experience and memory...
so becareful when you disprove...its more helpful and productive to share...share and let ideas experiences exchange and interact....its prolly the only way we'll ever learn somethin new...
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 3, 2005 16:26:09 GMT -5
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 3, 2005 16:26:09 GMT -5
I ask you, disproving or streamlining knowledge/truth? There is no hole that I see in my conclusion. All I see is a disproving of Karma in our present time and reality through logical and comprehensive demonstration, through syllogism or a variation of the format, through English. Show me concrete proof of a past life and that door of the conversation will open up for me and I`ll accept my logic disproving karma (and it does, quite simply) as possibly faulty. There isn`t proof for it, and as you said, as I said, that doesn`t make it nonexistent or invalid, but that also doesn`t make it existent or valid. All I know is what I know, the here and now, in which karma has been disproved. This is probably enough for my final point, but I think I`ll write some 'even if' senarios (don`t get these confused with my main point here and underline the contradictions; of those I am fully aware). Basicly, more holes in the defensive dam. I don`t even know why I`m writing all this; the fact that it exists only in the minds of those that believe is enough to end my point; it really speaks for itself. Reality/The world isn`t bending to make karma real in the minds of those who believe in it. Quite the opposite. The minds of those who believe in karma bend reality to allow karma to make sense. So Karma isn`t even of this world. It`s of the mind. The mind of the believer, the believer being one who bends reality to allow Karma to fit in. In other words, the self deciever. Karma is supposed to affect/include all living beings. All souls. But it doesn`t because bad things happen to good people, as has been explained and proven in my post previous. The final sentance in that quote seems to indicate the final nail in my coffin of theory, to use another metaphor. To me it only aids my offense, showing that karma is something off the mind and not the external world, reigning over how we percieve events and not the events themselves. Those are my final points unless you can shatter them both/all (I dunno how many undeflected attacks on Karma I`ve made). "It`s deep as fuck/ I ain`t seen it all, but I`ve seen enough, really unbelieveable stuff/" - Canibus
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 3, 2005 18:19:11 GMT -5
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 3, 2005 18:19:11 GMT -5
no offense was taken and no offense is meant through out this post.
karma is not supposed to explain and affect all living things. karma is supposed to allow for the explanation of all living things to those who accept it.
a few thoughts....and questions...
you've basically made the classic argument to disprove and invalidate all religions and belief in God.
God cannot be proved by external or physical things. honestly....God cannot. In your view that does not make it valid or invalid....true, but who are you to say because you dont have physical proof your perspective derives all logic.
we know that your logic fails from time to time, based on the straight line thereom....not that you are not smart, but you happened to innocently overlook something. and that was something within basic algebra....whats to make you think you would not overlook something of a higher order. You walk in straight lines everyday, and could not grasp the thereom...just like you live everyday and who knows what else, you and i, and everyone else, fail to comprehend do to our limitations or inexperience...
u r mighty to pronounce...karma cannot be logical or applicable because karma cannot be proven. karma exists because it is reality to certain people.
the conception of God exists not because of proof but because of Gods reality to religious people.
for atheist readers...God is understood irrational and illogical, so to make this case within that context i'll use another example...
question...(rhetorical question)
do thoughts exist? does information exist? how about memories?
people take these things for granted as reality...but shouldnt! thoughts cannot be collected or transfered, they are massless and matterless. thoughts are not understood by advanced scientist. scientist can look at activity in the brain, but they cannot call those thoughts. scientist can just look at activity that occurs based on something...something we define as thought. if something is massless, matterless, and not a constituent of energy...it cannot be proven by science and is therefore theory, conjecture, myth, existential, or spirital (plato and aristitle called it the pneuma)
if you have a computer with no information on it and weigh it and then take the computer and fill it up with information, and weigh it again....the weight does not change. math/science logic cannot prove anything is different. same thing with memories(where are memories stored?)
you cannot prove physically what thoughts are or if thoughts exist. you cannot scientifically explain what information is...yet you can collect and pass on information.... you can also lose them.
like God and karma....thoughts are physically and logically improvable theories that we accept because they are in the reality of our minds and spirits. why do thoughts exist? i dont know how do they function...i dont know... do u have to think to think...i hope not!
yet its real to you... and u accept it. if u think in colors or english and someone else thinks in emotions and french, is that real...are they really doin that? is it illogical to think that? can someone think in math? sure..why? thoughts dont really exist!
the point here is that there are many things that cannot be proven and that have their existence in the minds of other people whose reality is just as valid as yours and mine. i have talked to a person who says they were reincarnated, and i've interacted with people that have done a number of things that....hmm we'll say defy physical experience. some people say they have experienced the presence of God.... impossible? a jesus guy rising from the dead and ascending to heaven in on a cloud....come on! number one, why did he ascend up....we've got planes now and been to outter-space...heaven isnt up there! or is it...prove it!
not to get too science heavy, but in case u believe that protons, neutrons, and electrons exist(subatomic particles) i hate to be the one to inform you but they dont....they are make believe! i bet u believe in a lot of hocus pocus you've just not yet found out is as logically sound as pigs(not cops, oink-oink pigs) flying airplanes.
dont disregard others because u cannot comprehend it, you couldnt comprehend a2+b2=c2 is it logical to think you can comprehend everything else? Their and My reality is just as flimsy as yours...(plus it creates bad karma lol )
and this is to say, be humble and accept your limited perspective and be loving and listen openly to others perspectives and experiences.... neither of us really knows much... because no one can see or experience but from their own eyes and body which is why we're so lucky to get to communicate with others that have eyes bodies and souls of their own!
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 4, 2005 18:58:11 GMT -5
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 4, 2005 18:58:11 GMT -5
For the record, I understand a2 + b2 = c2. You know I do because I was talking about it in the first post. I wasn`t going to reply to this post, because from what you said I didn`t feel the need. However, making such an underhanded and cheap shot deserves attention. Honestly, insulting ones ability to reason, understand and make sense is probably the lowest level of debate you could arrive at, and probably one of the most pretentious. It seems you haven`t read a word of what I`ve said, because if you had, you would have seen me incorporate what you said into my own theory, while your rebuttle comes up way short of disproving me.
You insult my power of comprehension, so show me where the problem in my reasoning is. That is a true debate, not this sophism that you`re pulling by attacking something other than the point at hand.
In all truth, I could say the same thing about you. You don`t know much at all, compared to how much there is to know, so you`re just as falliable. The thing is, I have the respect to reserve that judgement and listen to what you have to say and address whatever problems I see in your logic with mine. Let the words speak for themselves. The truth can only become more apparent that way. That`s how I get down.
Don`t grow too fond of yourself.
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 5, 2005 0:09:52 GMT -5
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 5, 2005 0:09:52 GMT -5
oh, nahhh dont get me wrong, i wasnt trying to be underhanded. I was not trying to insult you at all, I was just trying to state and show that you are fallible. by showing u r fallible i was attempting to show how reliance on your logic to evaluate someone elses reality may not be the best or most valid act. just like me...im in the same boat with u and everyone else. Do not get me wrong, I AM FALLIBLE, LIMITED, IGNORANT, SLOW, Naive, short on tons of scales, I was not placing you anywhere below or above me, just using an instance to show where u did not understand something that to some people(not me) is basic. That is why i had immediately after that statement included,
" Their and My reality is just as flimsy as yours"
showing everyone on the same base. Reality is just like calculus, physics, english, mandarin, or whatever is easy to some but not to me...
we are totally on the same page now. both of us, just as fallible and unknowing as someone that believes whole heartedly in karma. none of our perspectives are truly founded or logical....yet all of em can do exactly what we've been doing....incorporate other realities however minutely into the reality we have already constructed for our own persons.
i hope i didnt offend you, none was intended. cheers
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 11, 2005 16:05:23 GMT -5
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 11, 2005 16:05:23 GMT -5
I have a notebook, in which I jot down my thoughts on the nature of things. A philosophy book. I had to put this debate in there. I didn`t do it word for word, I took the main points of both sides of the argument and wrote them down in dialect form. This required a reread. My last reply was intended to be my last; I figured the words really spoke for themselves, and through them, a victor, the person and theory that is correct, shall be acknowledged. I would have liked to recieved some replies to this thread agreeing or disagreeing with my logic, but alas, there are none. In my humble opinion, my disproving of Karma was solid and pretty much flawless (that`s me being humble ;D). After a reread I still proclaim it as such. But because there has been no closure, I`m left feeling a little copped out. I`d like to hear what everybody, including Colour of Art, thinks of this thread. Especially Colour of Art ;D Fuck it. Disprove me or I`ll list every problem I`ve found in your defense of Karma and every unaddressed point I`ve made on this thread ;D. That sounds like a threat, but it`s not so serious. I just like being right. And I`m sure you can all relate. That`s part of the thrill of the debate is it not? Yeah, maybe it`s egotistical, but I`m demanding my own satisfaction Disprove me.
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 11, 2005 22:25:42 GMT -5
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on Feb 11, 2005 22:25:42 GMT -5
Kage, I really don't think it can be proven or disproven. There are too many things that people believe, loopholes and whatnot that can be used. My theory of karma was mentioned briefly before but I did not mention my spiritual view of karma because it is similar to what someone else (I think it was ST) mentioned before.
From my spiritual standpoint, karma comes in the form of a reward or punishment from God, but it is not restricted to that. If you do good in the name and the eyes of God he will reward you. If you do bad in the eyes of God you will be punished. The closer you become to God, the more you are tempted to do wrong (because the devil is trying to get you to fall away from God) but the easier it is for you to recognize the bad and turn away from it. When you turn away from the bad you are rewarded. Some may say those who are righteous are not rewarded as well as those who are wicked. But you must see the person's satisfaction for the things they have, and their ultimate reward is to dwell in heaven alongside Jesus and his angels.
Some may say there are people who do bad and seem to always be more rewarded than those who do good. But I see the reward for doing wicked is given to them by the devil. It is an incentive for them to continue to wrong because of the magnificent things they've received. What could be better than being rewarded with everything your heart may lust for? But you are still miserable. And if you do not turn away from your wicked ways, then your ultimate reward would be eternal damnation. When someone turns to wickedness, they hardly need any encouragement to continue being wicked.
I'm not looking for anyway to disprove or prove my comment. It is simply my deeprooted beliefs. Even though I admire the concept of karma, my concept of 'karma' will always be based upon my spiritual beliefs. I hope my thoughts made sense to you, also.
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 18, 2005 12:58:29 GMT -5
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 18, 2005 12:58:29 GMT -5
Definition 1. Karma is defined as the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction which governs all life. 2. Negative Karma is defined as perceivably unjust events created by unsavory actions (unsavory inactions and nonphysical actions inclusive). 3. Innocence is defined as a state of being without sin, malice or wrongdoing; one without unsavory actions, etc. 4. Unsavory actions are defined as actions contrary to conscience, morality, or law; unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention. 5. Unjust events are defined as events that are unfavorable to those who perceive them as such. 6. Reincarnation is defined as the rebirth in another body (after physical death), of some critical part of a person's personality or spirit.
Axioms 1. Events are usually perceived as just or unjust. 2. Karma is eternal, infalliable and ultimate. 3. If Karma exists, reincarnation also exists.
Proposition 1. Karma exists only in the minds of those who believe in it, contradicting its definition. 2. The pairing of Karma and Reincarnation is one without weight.
Proof 1. Innocent life often experiences Negative Karma. (See Axiom 1). An innocent cannot experience Negative Karma. Therefore Karma doesn’t exist universally, contrary to its definition (See Axiom 2).
If it doesn’t exist universally, how can it exist at all? I pose that it exists only in the minds of men, which is far less concrete or objective or real than the external world we call reality1. Reality doesn’t manipulate Karma to make it logically plausible; the mind manipulates its reality to make Karma plausible. How could it be the other way around?
Following Hindu belief2, the innocent may have performed unsavory actions in its past life. Reincarnation is the scapegoat that remedies the logical dead end of Karma for Hinduism (See Axiom 3). However, there is zero proof of reincarnation. Since I haven’t seen proof of reincarnation, I cannot say if it exists or not3. Isn’t the fact that reincarnation is metaphysical rather than empirical just the perfect icing on the cake?
2. Without reincarnation, Karma crumples (See Proof 1). Incorporating reincarnation with Karma, essentially we have a belief purposive to rectify the logical pitfalls of Karma, which is essentially a belief created to explain and bring order to random and unfair events (such as bad things happening to innocents). Reincarnation is an idea used to back up another idea, both ideas of which have no logical stance in perceivable reality. Basically Karma on the one hand is a belief that’s proof is improvable; on the other hand it plain doesn’t exist. In order for Karma to exist we have to accept reincarnation, something that is without proof. This is a huge leap of faith for two ideas that have no logical basis.
1I choose not to delve into the realm of questioning reality; in reality we all know what it is.
2There is no self to transmit in accordance with Buddhist belief.
3Although I can display a reasonable disfavor for the idea of reincarnation because there is so much proof against it, eg. forgotten memories of past lives and the immeasurable and so dubious soul.
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 19, 2005 19:07:27 GMT -5
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on Feb 19, 2005 19:07:27 GMT -5
Just a quick question, was that directed towards no one in particular because I know I wasn't attempted to prove or disprove anyone with my response.
BTW, thanks for the detailed info. I never looked at it that way before... never really cared before though... >_>
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 19, 2005 23:03:07 GMT -5
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 19, 2005 23:03:07 GMT -5
That wasn`t retaliation. It was clarification. ;D
I like what you said, although I`m skeptical about if there's a God, but that`s something I don`t think I`ll be clarifying anytime soon. I wouldn`t argue it. ;D
|
|
|
Karma
Feb 22, 2005 13:51:16 GMT -5
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on Feb 22, 2005 13:51:16 GMT -5
That's perfectly fine. I didn't know if that was pointed in my direction, that's all. I getcha, Kage. And even if we were going to debate if there was a God or not, I wouldn't be involved and it wouldn't be in here. LOL, nice facts though.
|
|