recall the problem of evil, a thorn in the side of Christianity, an irresolvable inconsistency vis-à-vis an omnibebevolent deity. — Agent Smith

Indeed, as I said already, established religion is always the perversion of spirituality. Jesus spoke of 'the Father', not of 'an omni-benevolent deity', and a glance at the Old Testament does not give the impression of omni-benevolence at all, but more of an arbitrary tyrannical vindictive jealous and cruel god. More like a Roman Emperor than a crucified carpenter. 'God is good' is another justification of the status quo by the powers that be. The ultimate demonstration that God is good is that he has put the white man in charge of the world.

Indeed, as I said already, established religion is always the perversion of spirituality. Jesus spoke of 'the Father', not of 'an omni-benevolent deity', and a glance at the Old Testament does not give the impression of omni-benevolence at all, but more of an arbitrary tyrannical vindictive jealous and cruel god. More like a Roman Emperor than a crucified carpenter. 'God is good' is another justification of the status quo by the powers that be. The ultimate demonstration that God is good is that he has put the white man in charge of the world. — unenlightened

You seem to be well aware of the facts. However, it's worth questioning the motives of people/critics who deny the authenticity of the Biblia Sacra and then when it suits them, quote passages from it to prove their case. Double standards any which way you look at it? You can't have the cake and eat it too, oui monsieur?

That said, you're on the right track as far as I can tell. An omnibenevolent deity is incongruent with facts as they stand. I feel sorry about that and, on behalf of those who insist God is all-good, I must tender a heart-felt apology to the world and the cosmos itself.

G'day señor!

Double standards any which way you look at it? — Agent Smith

To an extent, but only to an extent. There are clear differences one can find between the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the bible and other sources such as the Gospel of Thomas, and the doctrines of Popes and moral philosophers; the same goes for all the religions. There is an original transformative insight, and people are attracted to what they see from the outside of that, but they do not themselves have the understanding, and thereafter things become more and more distorted. Rich men like to hear that they can enter heaven with their laden camels, and they will employ a priest who will explain that it is so, and Jesus meant something else.

And of course the fake news merchants of the day will have put their own messages into the mouths of the great and the good as well. One has therefore to look for a consistent message amongst the millennia of distortions and additions. Or start again from scratch to seek an insight of one's own.

It's amazing how twisted up you can get over the concept that all intentional actions have consequences.

I suppose that folks are more apt to be twisted up by it the further down the caste system they’re born into. :confused:

I think the OP has nothing to do with any religious or spiritual doctrine about karma; I think it is rather a very philosophical question, but it creates some confusion because of the use of the word “karma”, that immediately sends us to religions and spiritualities.
I would express the OT this way: if the nature of this world is able to completely annihilate any human effort to do something good, to improve, to be more generous, altruist, what’s the point of making any effort in trying to be better? I mean annihilate at all levels, including the very person who is trying to be better. In other words, we have absolutely no evidence that anything good causes anything else good.
My answer is that the motivation to be or to do anything good cannot rely on anything objective. It can only be a choice, based on the whole of ourselves, our humanity, our emotions, our sensitivity, without excluding some reasoning.

How very insightful! Hats off to you.

"Distortion" is the key word here, oui? Bad karma, the severe case of the sniffles you get on the day before an important exam!

Interesting comment in the Brittanica entry:

The connection between the ritual and moral dimensions of karma is especially evident in the notion of karma as a causal law, popularly known as the “law of karma.” Many religious traditions —notably the Abrahamic religions that emerged in the Middle East (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)—place reward and punishment for human actions in the hands of a divine lawgiver. In contrast, the classical traditions of India—Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, much like the Vedic sacrificial theology that preceded them—view karma as operating according to an autonomous causal law. No divine will or external agent intervenes in the relationship of the moral act to its inevitable result. The law of karma thus represents a markedly nontheistic theodicy, or explanation of why there is evil in the world.

That is the reason why many 19th and 20th century Buddhist advocates would claim that Buddhism is 'scientific', where karma is portrayed as a causal law on a par with Newton's laws of motion - which of course it can't be, as there's no way of measuring it. But I still believe the idea provides a naturalistic basis for ethics.

I think the OP has nothing to do with any religious or spiritual doctrine about karma; I think it is rather a very philosophical question, but it creates some confusion because of the use of the word “karma”, that immediately sends us to religions and spiritualities. — Angelo Cannata

It I immediately sends us to “religions and spiritualities” because it is entirely religious in nature. The concepts of cause and effect aren’t religious, karma is entirely religious.

I still believe the idea provides a naturalistic basis for ethics. — Wayfarer

Indeed, what could be more natural than a social hierarchy and subjugation of the underclass.

You’ve made your view clear, but I don’t share it. It’s true that the Hindu caste system exploited the idea of karma for its purposes. As I already said, there was a large-scale social movement in India to convert the Dalits to Buddhism in large part because Buddhism doesn’t recognise the caste system. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

Actually there is a rather strict social hierarchy in Buddhism.

Someone told me Steely Dan's 'Only a Fool would Say That' was written in response to John Lennon's Imagine.

Figures.

//even found a ref!//

It's odd that ethics is conceived of as (a) business (transaction) - good & bad karma are like wages (+) and debts (-). Ergo, there should be a provision to declare (karmic) bankruptcy and get your debtors off your back!

This is the attempt at measurement, referred to by above.

Wage, is fundamentally a method for assigning a quantitative value to a good deed. Next, in the basic principles of economics, comes a proposal of a harmony between the value of a good deed, wage, and the value of property, capital. The problem is that these two values are not necessarily compatible, as they most often are derived from different ideals, yet they are quantified by the same monetary scale. Economics can only be successful if the two are related to each other as the means to the same end, but capital generally has a different source from wage. And Karma would probably be better measured as a form of capital rather than a form of wage.

Someone told me Steely Dan's 'Only a Fool would Say That' was written in response to John Lennon's Imagine.

Figures.

//even found a ref!// — Wayfarer

:lol: I don’t need to imagine a world without religion. Only fucking fools can’t imagine such a world though, I would say.

Nothing personal, it's just business.

Could I start a company selling good karma and buying bad (karmic) debts à la Jesus Christ? This is an already established practice albeit on a small scale in some Himalayan communities (casting a wide net here)! :chin:

It's amazing how twisted up you can get over the concept that all intentional actions have consequences. — Wayfarer

The consequences of unintentional actions are just as real as intentional ones. It's amazing how twisted up people can get over simple cause and effect.

My issue with karma is the idea of personal continuity. Are we always the same in essence from one moment to the next? Karma in this sense doesn’t permit the ability to change for the better or for the worse. This is a form of unjust eternalism. “Type-casting” as it were. — Benj96

Depends on what you mean by "essence". Each person is an amalgam of various characteristics. Just because one of those characteristics changes does not mean that we are not the same person. After all, what it is that is changing? To even assert change is to assert that there is something with an identity that changes. And what type of changes are we talking about if not the perceptions we have of the world as a result of our actions?

Is karma only related to how the consequences of our actions affect other people, animals, or anything else in the world? Other people's reactions to the consequences of our actions are just as real as falling of your bike when not riding it correctly or being bit by the snake you are harassing, and can change us just as much as being socially isolated when you steal from someone.

I don’t need to imagine a world without religion. Only fucking fools can’t imagine such a world though, I would say. — praxis

You'd be bereft if it happened - nothing to kvetch about.

The consequences of unintentional actions are just as real as intentional ones. — Harry Hindu

With the significant caveat that they're out of our control.

I understand 'Karma' to be the idea that if you do wrong, you'll get your just deserts. But importantly, not because a god or God will see to it that you do, but rather just because this is how the universe operates, without assistance from any agency.

It is, needless to say, a preposterously silly view that has no evidence for it at all. Indeed, all the evidence points in the other direction. The world seems to be an unjust place in which the distribution of harms and benefits has nothing directly to do with the morality of one's behaviour or character traits. Some bad people thrive, some don't; some good people do, some don't. And note one example - just one - of a good person having an awful time would refute the theory.

And note too that as we are born innocent then all the harms of childhood are unjust. To posit a past life in which one has done wrong and for which those harms are the deserved consequence is simply to have ignored the evidence in favour of one's theory.

It is no accident, I think, that believers in the Karmic worldview also believe that it is crucially important not to think. For the view simply does not stand to reason. This is not to deny that inculcating the view in people may have moral benefits: it will motivate those too dumb to scrutinize it to behave well. But the existence of moral reasons to believe or inculcate a view is not evidence that the view is true.

Religion is only a small, and rather silly when you think about it, part of the world.

Imagine a larger world
It may prove hard to do
Other things to kvetch about
With no religion, whoo-hoo!

Buddha is to karma as Newton is to Newton's 3^rd law of motion (action = reaction).

I'm gonna tat because I get a tit in return! :snicker:

Although such research is questionable, those that study reincarnation stories have not found evidence for karma. Only for reincarnation through alleged memories of previous lives.

Although such research is questionable, those that study reincarnation stories have not found evidence for karma. Only for reincarnation through alleged memories of previous lives. — TiredThinker

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

The Greek notion of metempsychosis doesn't include karma (moral causation). Everybody reborn is given a fresh start, there being no such thing as a karmic debt that carries over from the past life.