Aww, thanks everyone!
Well … he did end up shooting himself in the head, euthanizing Blondy and Braun - so, that kind of sucks. And all of these things were a consequence of his actions and internal motives. So it seems like karma got him in the end. What would you call it, if not karma?
Biting off more than one can chew tends to have that effect, albeit not always that flagrantly.
I don’t think I would call it karma,
it was a consequence of his previous mistakes in war, not of his crimes
if it is karma, then all “bad” people die its because their bad karma?, what about the “good” people die?
Happy Birthday (sorry im late)
So, had he planned and executed a better war effort and won, he’d have suffered no consequence for his inherent evil? I’ll admit. It sounds like a fair assessment … I am admittedly on the fence about karma. Evil people get away with evil shit every single day. And there are no consequences for that.
I suppose the only comforting thought is that we who practice virtue exercise the right to a clean conscience. I truly believe we have a conscience which is weighed down by the emotional energy associated with hurting others or causing others suffering. On the opposite spectrum, those who practice virtue get to avoid that feeling of guilt, shame, remorse, and constant anxiety over “getting caught”. In the end, if we’re not accountable to a deity, we are at least accountable to each other.
Well, no. I think the sentiment expressed with the idea of karma is that bad people get bad rewards and good people get good rewards. That seems to be the sentiment and not, instead, that people die according to their deeds. I used Hitler’s death as an example of shitty things that happen to shitty people.
However society clearly shows that crime does in fact pay and cheaters don’t always get caught. And Totalitarians often rule with impunity. And the humble masses often toil in the mud and treat their fellow man well without ever tasting any real satisfaction in life.
There is, so to speak, no “hard law” (as it would appear) that would punish the evil for their deeds and rewarding the good for theirs.
Never too late Narchismo. Thanks for the birthday wishes
LOL… Haven’t you heard? Hitler escaped to South America. He lived out his life happy and rich.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY, that bad guys don’t always get what’s coming to them. When did this happen?
Happy Birth Ratty My toast will feature a newly discovered Malbec from Argentina.
Uhh, this was in the newsletter … last month … yeah … apparently they changed the “Universal Constitution” and now bad guys are getting away with shit. They don’t have to pay any cost for enacting suffering on innocent people. Wild right?
Or maybe they do. Maybe there’s a super intelligent, super powerful being(s) out there who levies out punishments and rewards for deeds done during life (at the time of death).
A) that would at least provide a basis for a universal justification of action based on moral absolutes since:
-
we live in a world where we intuitively know that good is good and bad is bad (the non-psychopaths do anyway)
-
near death experiences often come with a life review where the person sees the effects of their entire life (on a moral level - indicating that our moral fibre during life is the most important thing about being alive)
-
psychedelic experiences are deeply “moral” in nature with one’s own moral fibre being called into question during the trip (this is why drug addicts find DMT and other hallucinogenic substances to be extremely therapeutic - they don’t mimic the substance - they call the moral fibre of the person into question - with a common result being the deep resolution on the drug addicts part to change one’s path)
Even if such a being(s) doesn’t exist the NDE tells us that:
B) visions of Hell and visions of Heaven are common - indicating that even if the last thing we experience before death is a hallucination, the effect of our moral constitution while living is such to determine that the last experience we will have before perishing forever will be one in which we are either rewarded or punished for our behaviour during life.
For me personally, it’s complicated. I have direct knowledge of the existence of Hell. I also know that being a good person does not remove the possibility of going there at the whim of the Overlord.
The notion of Hell is compelling on an intuitive level. However, I feel like the main reason most people want to discard with the idea entirely is because they are all relatively well behaved, well intentioned beings and the idea of subjugating one’s self to a religion or being led by “the nose” (so to speak) - as if to treat every single moment in life as a chance to “be good” or “do right” … all of that is repugnant and oversimplifies the reality of “being human” (in the moral sense).
Nonetheless, this does not assuage my concerns and the guarantee that I will not end up in eternal damnation is never there. It simply doesn’t matter how good I try to be in this life, the Overlord will do not only as He pleases but also He will do as has been ordained.
Every dog has his day, if you like. And the Buddha described karma which is to be experienced as a human, as an animal, as a ghost, as a hell being, and as a deva. So … without knowing what “evils” in the past we have already “paid for”, there’s no telling if some karma remains which must be “exhausted” (as the Buddhists like to say) in Hell.
Now, this should mean nothing to you, so don’t take it personally … please. I would never ascribe someone else with my own beliefs. I’m just lightly suggesting that people would be surprised by what the unseen part of reality has in store for us mortals.
And of course the mere notion of God is laughable. And the afterlife - give me a freaking break. Look at all the crappy people getting away with shit in this world. It’s laughable. We sit here grinding our teeth, thinking “they’ll get there’s” - and do they???!!! Ha! Life is but a free for all. And we would all do well to take a page out of Nietzsche and rise to power while we have the chance. That is the only thing that matters in life - our ability to subjugate our fellow man before he subjugates us!!! Right???
If atheists are brain-washed then believers are brain-soaked in BS and happy about that.
Your imaginary friend punished people based on what you consider to be “wrong”?
In case I haven’t mentioned it yet, I am NOT brainwashed. MY brain is dry cleaned! 
Worse in some cases…it’s based on what bronze age patriarchal Bedouin societies felt was wrong.
The prototype for the Bene Gesserit.
Oh, well first of all she was a famous Welsh actor, and second of all that was an awesome film, so…?
Sorry, you seem to have skipped a few steps? Talking to me about the BG?
WOW! Do you have any idea how out of touch that statement is? A simple Google Search:
Buddhist scripture condemns violence but varying textual interpretations has been used to allow it. Ahimsa, a term meaning “not to injure”, is a primary virtue in Buddhism.[1] However, Buddhists have historically used scriptures to justify violence or form exceptions to commit violence for various reasons.[2][3] As found in other religious traditions, Buddhism has an extensive history of violence dating back to its inception.[3][4]
This article discusses Buddhist principles with regard to violence, and also provides certain, historical instances concerning the use of violence by Buddhists, including acts of aggression committed by Buddhists with political and socio-cultural motivations, as well as self-inflicted violence by ascetics or for religious purposes.[5][6]
Despite these historical instances, the written practices of Buddha denounce violent actions.[4] Contemporary violence, or the promotion of violence, has been on the rise in some Buddhist communities. This article provides information on instances of violence perpetrated by Buddhists throughout the world and explores recorded instances of Buddhist violence by region.
A few years after arriving in Korea, the Buddhists in this country began killing one another. One of the leaders died and two factions went at each other. Each faction wanted their man to be the next leader. Unlike the Catholic Church where they hide all their disagreement from the public, these jerks went to the rooftops and firebombed each other.
LOL… Buddhism is a religion of peace? LOL.
What I perceive as Buddhism is different from the whole picture I guess, I have previously received education in this thread 
, so there is no need for additional reasons to convince me 
. I adhere to facts 
.
Buddhism is arguably more diverse than any other religion. It began with nontheistic principles and evolved to include highly theistic beliefs in certain regions. Early Buddhism’s flexibility and central positioning allowed for varied interpretations. For instance, when Buddhism was introduced to Tibet, it blended with the local religion, creating a new form of Buddhism. This phenomenon has occurred globally. Even in Sri Lanka, despite claims of having the purest form of Buddhism, variations are evident. We have a pantheon of deities borrowed from Hinduism and Indian culture, as well as from local traditions.
I was wondering why a religion like Buddhism which is a religion of peace became violent and led to violence. Adhering to the principles of Buddhist doctrine, followers are so committed to non-harm that they would not even hurt an insect. This principle partly explains why the Portuguese were able to convert fishermen to their faith upon their arrival.
This conversation has prompted me to wonder about the possible reasons.
The causes of Buddhism becoming associated with violence are diverse, often rooted in political nationalism, ethnic conflicts, and the misinterpretation of Buddhist teachings.
While Buddhism fundamentally promotes peace and non-violence, external influences such as political engagement, fear of religious threats, and nationalistic zeal can sometimes lead to situations where certain Buddhists engage in or endorse acts of violence. Often motivated by a desire to defend the state, Buddhist culture, or the religion itself, these actions can stand in stark contrast to Buddhism’s central doctrines of compassion and non-harm.
Historical and contemporary instances of violence have been linked to political, social, and ethnic factors. Ethno-religious nationalism often ties Buddhism to national identity, leading to violence when the faith is perceived to be under threat, as seen in Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Religious competition and fear of cultural erosion from other religions, like Islam or Christianity, have also fueled violence, particularly in Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya Muslims. Some extremist groups justify violence through radical interpretations of Buddhist texts, framing it as a defense of the Dharma. Buddhist monks, especially in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, have become political actors, aligning with nationalist causes that endorse violence.
If some group of people follows Buddhism correctly the group would eventually disappear from the face of the earth if I am speaking from a biological and evolutionary perspective.
In his book “The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism.”, Weber argued that:
“Buddhism is inherently individualistic, as it focuses on personal salvation through the pursuit of Nirvana, detached from worldly concerns. This inward focus leads to an asocial and otherworldly orientation, where social obligations, material attachments, and worldly power hold little relevance to the ultimate spiritual goal.”
Weber believed that because Buddhism emphasizes personal enlightenment and withdrawal from worldly affairs, it does not lend itself easily to collective social responsibilities or political structures, making it “asocial” in its spiritual pursuits. I agree with his view, even though some aspects of Buddhism explain social things.
Religion can sometimes provide a shared identity that fosters social cohesion, particularly when violence is justified as a defense against external threats. This can be seen as an extension of evolutionary tribal behavior influencing social and religious norms. David Sloan Wilson’s “Darwin’s Cathedral” suggests religion evolved to enhance group cooperation. Scott Atran’s “Talking to the Enemy” talks about how religious violence defends group identity. Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of Religious Life” illustrates religion’s role in tribal cohesion.
While some religions may accommodate such behaviors, early Buddhism is generally not thought to have done so. As Buddhism evolved into various sects across different cultures, its teachings became more diverse. Some sects may only share a nominal connection to early Buddhism, other than recognizing the historical Buddha. The concept of bodhisattvas, itself is not originally found in early Buddhist teachings. Early Buddhism, considered the oldest form of the Buddha’s teachings, has been preserved in multiple languages.