seekeratthesea

Yes......we all should, but not for some eastern religion reason, because it's the Christian thing to do.

I think this is wrong, in that not being guilty of a particular sin doesn't give special right to judge that sin, because we're all guilty of some type of sin, so in God's eyes we're all part of the problem. If the collective, big problem with humanity it sin, then in that sense, we are all guilty of the same thing. An imperfect analogy..........if it were a sin to eat ice cream, I could see humanity fighting over certain flavors of ice cream being less sinful than others. I also think that since we all still see others from our own sinful perspective, it pollutes our judgment which may be why there are verses against judgment. How do you correctly judge sin from a sinful perspective? Having said all that, we obviously have to judge in the sense of distinguishing from right and wrong. I'm not talking about walking around with blinders. I need to be able to tell my son certain things. I need to be able to say that stealing is wrong, certain lifestyles, etc. This is for later......not for now anymore than necessary because we ourselves are still looking at others through our own sinful perspective. Let's also not get too anxious about it either.......I don't think it's supposed to be some kind of authority trip. This is difficult to argue against, but mostly because it reads as if you're applying the judgment to your own actions, which is good and which I'm sure you do.

Is there actually an article link for what you heard. I did a real quick yahoo search and didn't find anything out. Plus I'm in California where gay marriage is an issue because the court just overturned the ban on gay marriage which was put in place by vote of the people in 2000. But I've heard nothing about preachers losing a license for refusal to perform the weddings.......which would be adding insult to injury. To be honest, I doubt gay groups would be dumb enough to push for something like that (at this time) because it would create a backlash...........which is already on the way anyway. I understand they would love it to be that way.....but from a realistic perspective, it would hurt them to even push for it, and I think they know it.

Well if that's true, then you have a GREAT reason not to help keep this thread alive by continuing to respond. If this person you speak of was in a false belief system then they should get out..........if they have doubts they should err on the side of caution. But to help keep the thread alive and then complain that my opinions are hurting people won't work. Nobody who responds should be complaining about the thread or me doing harm because with no responses.....the thread becomes dead. Safe for your to assume that I won't be responding to zero responses. That reminds me of a quote in the Bible. Spoken by Cain. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Do you honestly not care that the words you have posted are harmful to another's faith? Will not God hold you accountable to your words? Now you're taking on the same mantra on the one hand but also keeping the thread alive on the other, so if you think the thread is a threat, you need to ask yourself your own question. I don't need to buy into the notion that I'm doing harm by not being worried about the word karma......I believe it's better to treat it as a two syllable word rather than turn it into something that you think will bring down Christianity. People should believe that Christianity is stronger than that.

I don't know about New Age and emergent church and you really don't need to agree. I'm not trying to make some start saying karma. I attend different calvary churches throughout Orange County, CA. they don't teach anything about karma and I wouldn't go to one that was into eastern stuff anyway. It's about not being word phobic......not about being new agey. I've asked this question before and am not getting answers..........not of you yet but here it is now........ What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity. Real answers please.....not questions that are supposed to elicit answers that you want me to believe because that just means the person doesn't have the courage to speak for themselves. Just speak directly with direct answers.

What happened to Israel when they built a golden calf and claimed it was God? What opinion did the Lord have of the High Places of worship, even though people worshiped Him there? What if a Christian were to use the Wiccan phrases "Blessed be" and "Merry meet" - after all, aren't we to bless each other? Those three things are not answers....they're just three more questions that don't answer anything. Why won't YOU answer yourself. Jesus answered with questions all the time. The point being if you can answer these questions, they would grant you insight into my answer. To speak of karma as a Scriptural principle to me would be the same as me greeting you with, "Merry meet" and sticking a "Blessed be" bumper sticker on my car. I could say that to me "Blessed be" is short for "Blessed be the name of the Lord," but to a Wiccan, who uses this phrase, it means something way different and would not be bringing glory to the Lord at all to her. No, I would have to display the full quote: "Blessed be the name of the Lord!" - which is what the Scripture declares. If that answer doesn't satisfy you, then I will repeat what Shiloh says, because what he said explains my thoughts to the t. First of all, using a pagan term and using it in reference to God is a violation of the Scripture. God makes it very clear in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 12, that not only are we not employ pagan traditions as they pertain to other gods, we are not to adopt the customs of the pagans and employ those customs as they pertain to God Himself. To do so, is highly offensive to Him. To reduce his truth to a pagan concept is not a thing He approves of at all. Resorting to personal attacks is not the way to deal with conflict. Anyway, see my note above about the fear of the Lord. Correct me if I am wrong - But did you just say that it is not a Biblical principle, but it is a principle of God? You lost me here. But you still haven't said what you think will happen to Christianity if people use the word karma. I say it gets stronger no matter what happens, with or without the word. I guess you think it'll get weaker,

The problem is that you are taking a liberty that you don't have the right to take. Who or what is the "blue guy?" You don't seem to understand what is really at stake. First of all, using a pagan term and using it in reference to God is a violation of the Scripture. God makes it very clear in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 12, that not only are we not employ pagan traditions as they pertain to other gods, we are not to adopt the customs of the pagans and employ those customs as they pertain to God Himself. To do so, is highly offensive to Him. To reduce his truth to a pagan concept is not a thing He approves of at all. The problem with you is that you are defending your heresy on the basis of what seems perfectly acceptable in your own eyes. One of the things that got people into trouble with God is that each man was doing was right in his eyes. Each man lived as a law unto himself and did what he wanted as he saw fit. You are falling into the same trap. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Christmas and food sacrificed to idols are issues of conscience. Employing customs and integrating such into your life is NOT an issue of conscience and it is what got Israel sent into exile for 70 years. No, I am simply going by what the Bible says. You are one of these people that wants to live the Christian life on your terms. You want to do what seems fit in your judgment, but you are giving exactly zero consideration to God or to what He says in the Bible about your employment of pagan concepts. the problem is that you can't employ it apart from reincarnation. Only in your imagination does something like that work. First of all, God forbids it. It might be harmless to you, but you are evidently unable to see the bigger picture, which makes people like you dangerous for the Body of Christ. If you are willing compromise your faith on this issue, what else is there you would be willing compromise. You will do as you see fit, but I, however, am a Christian and I will follow God and not some silly, liberal, adolescent nonsense. Sorry but you don't get to define other peoples rights in the first place. I just use the blue guy to represent false religions or false gods....I saw funny pictures of 8 armed blue skinned Indian god things in books and that's what I think of when I think of eastern religions. And I don't need a lecture on who that guy really is or if he's not REALLY associated with karma............I use that blue guy to kind of represent all false religions and gods. Saying the word karma is not employing pagan traditions anymore than celebrating Christmas is....relax. And failing to be afraid of the word karma is not heresy, it's proper perspective. And sorry again but Israel wasn't just employing customs, they were worshiping idols. And using the word karma does not constitute employing customs anyway. And not being afraid of the word karma does not mean that I'm living on my terms instead of the Bible. You don't need to be uptight about the word......OR a false religion. I think you should appreciate the strength of Christianity more. It's not a fragile thing after all. As far as employing "it" apart from reincarnation. I don't employ reincarnation at all because I don't believe in it...so it's not connected to anything. And it your talking about the word "karma" I don't attach to the false notion of reincarnation. It won't work to tell me what I'm thinking when I say a certain word. You didn't answer this question..... What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity. You went into the reincarnation thing but that's clearly not what I asked. What do you think will happen to Christianity in the above scenario. I say Christianity overcomes all false religions so Christianity will always become stronger, with or without the word karma. You seem to think otherwise but don't want to come out and say so...............?????????????

Well if that's true, then you have a GREAT reason not to help keep this thread alive by continuing to respond. If this person you speak of was in a false belief system then they should get out..........if they have doubts they should err on the side of caution. But to help keep the thread alive and then complain that my opinions are hurting people won't work. Nobody who responds should be complaining about the thread or me doing harm because with no responses.....the thread becomes dead. Safe for your to assume that I won't be responding to zero responses.

It's doesn't sound nutty but it sounds uncomfortably familiar........so if it IS nutty, I've been there too. You need to stay REALLY keen to the fact that this there have always been way to find the end of times in our own life spans....I think it's a product of our own ego as much as anything else. Headlines can always be connected to prophecy, old calenders, numerology, can always point to the end of days.....I think the latest is 2012 and since you mentioned the mayans, I'm thinking that's what you have in mind. I got into it in the 80's though, and Christ was supposed to have returned by now. I also found out it was going on before I got into it. You can get lost in it and the dangerous trapdoor is that all but a few are supposed to be deceived or ignorant of these things........when extrapolates into a notion that when people think you're all wrong it means you're right because it just proves that your one of the few who know. Don't lose yourself. I was in the military when I started getting drawn into this stuff and if not for a transfer overseas, I'd have stayed with that crowd and could see myself getting lost in that world. The best thing that happened in those years was the transfer because I finally ended up reading the Bible without anyone telling me what to think as I read it. And remember, there are verses from Christ himself that say even He doesn't know, so it may be that we're not supposed to know, and it's certainly true that we don't need to know. And not being worried about it doesn't mean that you're "refusing to see" or that you're hiding from the truth either. It just means that you realize prophecy is not as important as being saved.

Even the History channel has done some specials "ripping" the book and movie, and oddly enough, I remember the star Tom Hanks issuing a statement as the controversy was coming to head before the release, saying the there was a lot of "hooey" in the movie......the same one he should have been promoting. Reminded me of the old imagery of a politician being run out of town so gets in front to make it look like a parade that he's leading.

I saw that movie three times.......it was great each one. I heard they were also going to the other three gospels using the same team but never found anything more on it.

What happened to Israel when they built a golden calf and claimed it was God? What opinion did the Lord have of the High Places of worship, even though people worshiped Him there? What if a Christian were to use the Wiccan phrases "Blessed be" and "Merry meet" - after all, aren't we to bless each other? The most dangerous enemy is not the one you can see, but the one you can't see. If you are not sensitive to how good the enemy is at deception, you are that much more vulnerable to be snared. "A fly ruins the ointment" - that's a verse in Proverbs. Take God's principle and add a little lie to it - and the principle becomes corrupted. Satan does this all the time. When we look for God's truth in other sources, we need to filter it through the entire Word and sift out the lies. "What goes around comes around" is not the Biblical principle. It may sound similar, but it still is not the principle of reaping and sowing. And it is unScriptural to claim words do not have power. After all, it was through spoken words that God created the universe and the world. Moses was told to speak to the rock (and was punished for not doing so). Several prophets were commanded to speak words of prophecy in order for them to take place. Jesus often spoke specific words when healing and performing other miracles. Jesus spoke the written Scriptures to rebuke Satan - not another religion's concept of the principle. Those three things are not answers....they're just three more questions that don't answer anything. Why won't YOU answer yourself. I would still like a answer here.... What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity. I think this will be the third time now......and at this point I'd also like to know what the big deal has been about answering it. I didn't think it was an intimidating question when I asked but even when you finally respond, you still refuse to answer....so what's the answer and what's the big deal. And I think you also realize that the words spoken by God, Christ, the prophets, etc are not what I was talking about when I criticize the phobia about the word karma. And the only unseen enemy I think you need to worry about is this phobia you have about that word. It could be mistaken as an indicator of how weak you think Christianity really is. Well here we go again but I also never said that "what goes around comes around" is a Biblical principal.........did I? I believe I've called it a principle of God. It's suggested to in the Bible but not laid out with those words, which actually make it sound more secular than I think it is. With relation to karma, the word is often associated with the "what goes around comes around" notion. I believe that "what goes around comes around" is true, and I believe that God is in charge of all things, and I'm not worried if someone uses the word karma to describe that principle as long as God is acknowledged as the sovereign which is what I've done the few times I've used it.

What is with putting "friend" in quotes? If she was still alive, she wouldn't appreciate this either. That was a bad play you made with this retort. You want to attack me - fine. But don't attack my friendship with her. You have no clue what we have been through together. No clue at all. ~~~ As for my friend, she understood what karma is. After all, it was an element of her belief system. And no, you didn't say, "God is Karma;" however, karma in the religion it comes from is regarded as if it were a diety - perhaps not expressed as such, but the people fear it as if it were. This is what I meant. Sure you think it is OK to use the word "karma" as you see fit, but if you ever went on a mission trip to India and spoke of karma, you would be opening the door to a world of hurt. No, you didn't. But this is the nature of karma. I highly disagree with this belief. If I were to visit my relatives down South, and while there I asked for a Coke, and the person handed me a Sprite (for down South, they call all soft drinks "Coke"), I would have a problem with this. I asked for Coke; I expect Coka-cola, not Sprite. I don't care if it is "all Coke" to them, it is not "all Coke" to me. And I refuse to accept calling a Sprite a Coke just to make them happy. In the same way, there is no way that I can accept karma outside of its origins and the context for which the Hindis and Buddhist believe and understand it to be. And if you speak with one of them, they won't either. As for the OP: The OP made a claim that "we all know Karma in a nutshell is 'What goes around comes around'" - but this is false. This is an opinion, not a fact. And we all do not ascribe to this. The OP is then asking if we agree or disagree. In what I have posted to you, I have been answering his appeal. In my case, I disagree. Sounds alot like what goes around comes around, or what you do to others will be done to you. Perhaps it does. But this is not what true karma is. That is all I am saying. You also know that I wasn't talking about karma as a deity so that's not an excuse to the God karma comment. It's been explained more than once in this thread that I'm using the definition that in the OP. That whole phrase is your term...all of it, not mine. You also know that I wasn't speaking of it terms of going to India for a conversation about it and if I were, the definition in the opening post wouldn't apply anyway. You're actually creating things to argue about here that weren't said or implied. And I wasn't talking about you accepting karma either. It's been clear in my own posts that I don't accept it myself, I just don't get phobic about applying the word to the "what goes around comes around" notion with the understanding that in reality it comes from God since he's the obvious creator of everything. Twice so far I

First of all, Buddhism is not a false god - it is a complex system. Buddha isn't even considered a god. I had a friend who was into Buddhism, and I can just imagine a conversation between you and her over this. She would have been in 100% agreement with you - and still 100% lost in sin and separated from Jesus. She thought all religions worshiped the same God, they just had different ways to worship Him. She also believed that God was an impersonal force, not a personal Being (I AM). How would your "God is Karma" theology have witnessed to her and testified to Jesus? Secondly, I bring up again: There is no grace nor mercy in karma. Karma leaves no room for repentance and forgiveness. Although "reaping and sowing" is a Biblical principle, it isn't the center of the Gospel. Reaping and sowing is an application of the Lord's discipline - which is meant to lead us to repentance. But it is not an extension of the battle of good versus evil - which Karma is based upon. The knowledge of good and evil is the forbidden fruit. But this is what the yin-yang, Karma balance is founded upon. A viceroy butterfly may look like a monarch butterfly, but it isn't. Karma may look like reaping and sowing, but it is a corruption of the truth. No . . . to blame consequences on karma is to believe in a legalistic "God" - not the God who's love and mercy extend beyond the reaches of the world, or a God of righteousness and justice who desires all men to come to repentance. Karma is the "Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" system. The God we know is above all that. It is sad to me you do not understand the difference. I didn't say God is Karma. I don't know your friend but given the way you're misrepresenting me and assigning things to me that I never said.........I suspect you may well be doing the same thing with this "friend" I also didn't say there was grace or mercy in karma, that's another untrue implication, it's at the point of making things up to have arguments about. And using the word karma is not associating it with anything as long as you're clear about what you mean by the word, as was done by the original poster and has also been done by me.

The concept of karma doesn't come from some blue guy god. Karma actually originates with the Hindi religion - which is known for absorbing all gods and beliefs into whatever system people like. Just a word? And who or what is the power behind karma? But in reading the Bible, you should see that the LORD can't be bound by such a nutshell. He isn't that legalistic. David knew this. Taht is how he could have boldness to cry for God's mercy after his sin. A karma god would have been unapproachable. Then call it by the Biblical concept, not the false. First, the principle is: 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. (Gal. 6) Karma is whatever you want to make it to be. (Classic Hinduism). And "what goes around comes around" implies that you will be given what you have dished. But the principle of reaping and sowing doesn't work like that. The former implies a backlash; the latter implies far reaching consequences that can be much more subtle and far more outreaching. Karma is not God's principle but a corruption of God's principle. I pray one day you can understand this. Point remains the same, feel free to take out "blue guy god" and insert "hindu guy god" There is no power behind karma...it's a word that in common usage means what the original poster defined it as "what goes around comes around".....that's the usage I'm using even though it may be a slang type definition, and despite the fact that eastern religions also use the word. Relax.........the word has no power....it's not magic I didn't say God could be bound in a nutshell and the fact that I used the phrase "nutshell definition" doesn't mean that either. There is no karma god and therefore approachability isn't even an issue...this is something else that a Christian shouldn't need explained to them. I didn't say God could be mocked and you didn't answer the question so here it is again...I'd really like to know your answer because I think this is all about word-paranoia and a wrong belief that Christianity is some fragile house of cards that's going to fall apart as soon as it bumps into something wrong, when in truth, greater faith should be telling all Christians to welcome this stuff as a means of explaining how all things come under Gods power...... so here's the question again. What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity. And "what goes around comes around" does not necessarily imply a backlash and BOTH can have far reaching consequences or short reaching circumstances, depending on different situations and behaviors. It is not possible to corrupt any of God's principles.........God, His principles, and Christianity are stronger than you can imagine and grow even more so when tested.......I hope you can find a stronger faith because Christianity deserves it.

Yeah, just pretend that no one is smart enough to know what karma really is. I am not an expert on other religions, but even I know what karma is and I know the difference between karma and "what comes around goes around" and "what you sow you shall reap." None of those have anything to do with karma and to refer to them as "karma" is simply laughable. It is EXACTLY about being suitable for Christinaity. You cannot use pagan concepts to explain or refer to biblical truths and expect to be able to communicate those truths correctly. The problem is that you are not explaining the word correctly to start with. Using the correct words are paramount to proper communication. You are not at liberty to use words in any manner you see fit. Which shows how little you understand this issue and the complexity of it. To you, it is as simple as using a word and supplying it with the meaning you want it to have and insult everyone else's intelligence by pretending they have no idea what the word actually means. I am sorry, but you just don't have a firm grasp on what you are talking about. sorry but there is no pretense to to....people who want to know are capable of knowing...most people are not of that religion but still they correctly understand the notion of what goes around comes around..........they just don't care to get to know the blue guy god or credit him with the notion of karma. Well if you think it's laughable then you MUST be an expert because most people think those concepts are part of karma. Just check the original post to get the common man definition....it's what most people accept karma as, rejecting the notions of a blue guy god at the same time. The idea of what goes around comes around is not pagan, it's real, applying it to a false god is pagan. But using the word "karma" doesn't mean you're applying it that way. Trust me...........I've used the word without applying it a a false god....it really CAN be done. The word has no power but it's possible to give it power by treating it as some type of threat. It's just a word. I don't supply the meaning....people already understand the word as generally meaning what the original poster said it meant in his/her "nutshell" definition. And when I have used the word, I've been clear about applying to the true God. And my presumption is that people don't know all the details of whatever god it's incorrectly applied to, but do know that the word "karma" comes from a culture where more people worship false gods than the true God. That doesn't mean they're wrong about noticing that "what goes around comes around" they're just wrong for crediting that to the false god. Rather than run from the karma, just put the principle into the correct context. If you feel the need to discredit the little micro details, then do that also. Just don't get phobic about the word. That's a little bit comparable to being afraid of meat offered to idols. I am sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about. Your position is akin to an irresponsible adolescent who cannot see the far reaching conseqences of his actions. What you don't understand is that you are not simply using a "word." You are communicating a pagan religious concept and attempting to use it within a Christian context. I realize you think it is harmless, but it isn't. It is not at all like December 25 and it is not like the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. You are bent on comparing this to other things that are completely dissimilar in nature. Your irresponsible use of "karma" would be more like someone trying to refer to Jesus as "God's Krishna" or something like that. You are not even using the word Karma correctly, and that is what makes your position weaker. You are trying to apply it to a concept which has nothing to do with Karma and bears no resemblance to "what goes around comes around except in your imagination. It is pretty bad when you can't even get the word or the concept right but act as if you have some right to use it in that manner. A mature, responsible Christian will not use the word Karma in the manner you do. Sorry but I do and it's very easy to be clear and specific and to use that word without confusion. Nobody ever had a conversation with me and thought I believed in the blue guy. I think you realize that you could also have the conversation and be clear....it actually takes about one extra sentence, and wasn't really necessary anyway. If you have issues with the word, than as with people that had issues with meat sacrificed to idols you shouldn't use it, same would apply to the Christmas comparison. But that's your issue. Most people can use the word AND keep a sensible perspective about it and not attach power to it that doesn't really exist. You seem to be applying to many of your own fears onto others. What do you think would really happen to Christianity if all Christians started using "karma" as the word to describe "what goes around comes around", applying the principle to God where it originates from, and rejecting all the reincarnation stuff? I see it as a threat to the false religion, NOT Christianity.

Again, no, this is not an argument about words. Every word in every language has a meaning. I might decide for myself that "buenos dias" means "tomato." but my Mexican neighbors know it means "good morning." My own private definitions have no relevance here. Jesus did not believe in reincarnation, caste, salvation by works, or a multiplicity of gods. He believed in grace, whereas karma leaves no room for it. But sadly, of course, many "Christians" do in fact subscribe to these heretical notions. Avoiding the use of such misleading terms is a good place to start. As I've said before, I've used the term once or twice and nobody has been confused. It's very easy to be clear about things. I think we're getting to the point of word phobia here.

I go to a small non denom church. And to put things in perspective, I think I've used the term "God's karma" once or twice in 47 years, and people understood it exactly as I meant it....a correction of a genuine notion that "what goes around comes around"....taking it away from the blue guy god and putting it back in the hands of the true God where it belongs. And when I say "karma" I mean the common man's definition as laid out in the original post. I know you can dig into micro details but the people I've spoken to couldn't care less about the blue guy god because they don't believe in him anyway. The simple "common man" definition from the original post is the one I use because that's the definition that describes what I believe in, that "what goes around come around" In truth I've spent more time talking about it on this thread than in real life but that's because people keep responding. My point is not that someone needs to make some religionistic effort out of saying the word with a Christian context......but to obsess over NOT saying the word is just being equally religionistic about the opposite.........my argument is more about a sensible perspective than anything else I hope never to loose my zeal for God at all. Being lackadaisical in choosing the right words when speaking of our Father is showing Him no respect. To use my example again, placing it into todays explanations of the meaning of words, to say that God is "bad" would be so wrong that it would need no explanation. So goes with your word Karma. Again, you seem to believe that it is acceptable to use a pagan worshiping word to express Gods ways. To me, as a Christian, doing so is very disrespectful of Him, it forces response. Yet, you avoid my question. Can you answer it completely? OneLight Saying that "God is bad" is not the same as using the word "karma" I'm not sure what question you say I've avoided........if you're talking about asking my preacher if I can use the word karma, I haven't. I actually have no plans of using it anyway. It's just that I wouldn't make a big deal of avoiding it. When I HAVE used it though, it's been clear that the "what goes around comes around" notion is of God's origin, not the blue guy. And I would also say that if it's not right in your own heart then don't do it............it's just that I think that's being a bit phobic about the word. As if the word has it's own power, which I doubt you believe but it incorrectly seems that way when you get to worried about something like this.

Yeah, just pretend that no one is smart enough to know what karma really is. I am not an expert on other religions, but even I know what karma is and I know the difference between karma and "what comes around goes around" and "what you sow you shall reap." None of those have anything to do with karma and to refer to them as "karma" is simply laughable. It is EXACTLY about being suitable for Christinaity. You cannot use pagan concepts to explain or refer to biblical truths and expect to be able to communicate those truths correctly. The problem is that you are not explaining the word correctly to start with. Using the correct words are paramount to proper communication. You are not at liberty to use words in any manner you see fit. Which shows how little you understand this issue and the complexity of it. To you, it is as simple as using a word and supplying it with the meaning you want it to have and insult everyone else's intelligence by pretending they have no idea what the word actually means. I am sorry, but you just don't have a firm grasp on what you are talking about. sorry but there is no pretense to to....people who want to know are capable of knowing...most people are not of that religion but still they correctly understand the notion of what goes around comes around..........they just don't care to get to know the blue guy god or credit him with the notion of karma. Well if you think it's laughable then you MUST be an expert because most people think those concepts are part of karma. Just check the original post to get the common man definition....it's what most people accept karma as, rejecting the notions of a blue guy god at the same time. The idea of what goes around comes around is not pagan, it's real, applying it to a false god is pagan. But using the word "karma" doesn't mean you're applying it that way. Trust me...........I've used the word without applying it a a false god....it really CAN be done. The word has no power but it's possible to give it power by treating it as some type of threat. It's just a word. I don't supply the meaning....people already understand the word as generally meaning what the original poster said it meant in his/her "nutshell" definition. And when I have used the word, I've been clear about applying to the true God. And my presumption is that people don't know all the details of whatever god it's incorrectly applied to, but do know that the word "karma" comes from a culture where more people worship false gods than the true God. That doesn't mean they're wrong about noticing that "what goes around comes around" they're just wrong for crediting that to the false god. Rather than run from the karma, just put the principle into the correct context. If you feel the need to discredit the little micro details, then do that also. Just don't get phobic about the word. That's a little bit comparable to being afraid of meat offered to idols.

I go to a small non denom church. And to put things in perspective, I think I've used the term "God's karma" once or twice in 47 years, and people understood it exactly as I meant it....a correction of a genuine notion that "what goes around comes around"....taking it away from the blue guy god and putting it back in the hands of the true God where it belongs. And when I say "karma" I mean the common man's definition as laid out in the original post. I know you can dig into micro details but the people I've spoken to couldn't care less about the blue guy god because they don't believe in him anyway. The simple "common man" definition from the original post is the one I use because that's the definition that describes what I believe in, that "what goes around come around" In truth I've spent more time talking about it on this thread than in real life but that's because people keep responding. My point is not that someone needs to make some religionistic effort out of saying the word with a Christian context......but to obsess over NOT saying the word is just being equally religionistic about the opposite.........my argument is more about a sensible perspective than anything else

Irrelevant. Just because people don't understand it, doesn't suddenly make it suitable for Christian consumption. No, it wouldn't be comparable at all no matter how long anyone waits, because you are trying to compare two completely disimilar things. You are working from a heretofore unproven assumption that Dec. 25 was chosen to connect Christ's birth to some pagan rite and many people have come to this board and have been unable to prove such a connection. Secondly, a date on a calendar and a pagan concept of reward and punishment that completely undermines the very existence, moral standard, and justice of God cannot be compared, no matter how hard you try. The comparison just doesn't exist. Which only highlights your ignorance on this issue. The fact is, "God's Karma" is a contradiction in terms. God does not have "karma" God has a perfect system of justice whereby the standard for right and wrong are clearly laid for us. You are trying to use the word on your own terms, but you dont have that right. Secondly, while Karma is a works based system where you try to work hard enough to tip the scales in your favor, God has no scales. Rather He has ONE perfect standard of righteousness that He demands of us. Furthermore, in light of that perfect standard, what God has chosen to do is pay for the sin of man on cross through His Son Jesus and forever satisfying His justice and then whenver someone accepts the free gift of eternal life He offers, the perfect standard of righteousness He demands is fulfilled inside each us when Jesus comes to live in the heart of the believer in the person of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, bad Karma is known a "Karmic debt" which must be paid. Jesus, however, has already paid our debt, and He paid it in full on the cross and by virtue of that we have complete peace with God. (Romans 5:1) When we sin, we don't have to work it off and pay a debt, we simiply go to Jesus, confess it, and His blood cleanses our concsience from all unrighteousness. Fourthly, reaping what you sow, speaks to consequences, and while we often must face the consequences of our actions, Karma is not based upon "consequences" but upon punishment. Yet in Karma, there is no realization of what a person is being punished for, so if you did "sow" something bad, you have no idea what it was, and thus no way of avoiding the same mistake again. It offers no standard of right and wrong, so there is no way to measure right and wrong to avoid further karmic debt in a future life. Frankly, people like to use words and apply their definitions and stuff, but the problem is that in doing so, you miscommunicate the gospel and you misrepresent the Christian faith. When it comes to clearly and correctly communicating the gospel, which bears directly on the eternal condition of every person, whether or not they will spend eternity with Jesus or not, we don't have room for that kind of flippancy. You may not care, but the rest of care as to how the Gospel is communicated and perceived by the rest of the world. There is too much at stake for all of humanity to take such irresponsible, and unChristian approach to these kinds of matters. It's already comparable because just as most people today couldn't tell the details of Dec 25ths pagan belief's or celebrations, most people can also not tell you the details of karma, they know the principle, and have probably noticed it happening around them, and they know the word karma is associated with the principle but obviously, if people thought the false religion had any credibility, there would less Christians and more karma types. The idea of "what goes around comes around" will survive because it's true but it does not threaten Christianity. I can imagine the same things being said when Christmas came into being as are now being said about the word karma. Just be sure that if you use the word, explain it as God's design in the universe. It's also not about karma being suitable for Christianity, it's about EVERYTHING including the notion of what goes around comes around, coming under the authority of God, and it's under God's authority no matter what word is used or not used. Fixating on not using a specific word to describe a well known principle is wrong.....just explain it correctly. I also never said that Dec 25 was CHOSEN to connect Christ's birth with paganism. I think (not sure) it was chosen to intentionally of take over that day and turn it into a Christian celebration, rather than a pagan thing, which (if it's true) was a bold, aggressive thing to do which worked. To now shy away from a certain foreign word because it ties in with something they believe is wrong. Better to use the Christmas holiday as an example of how Christianity overcomes false religions. If anything Christians should be much less worried about the word and much more aggressive about taking that principle away from the false God, so that the few who still believe in the false God can start believing in the real God and applying the principle to Him. When Christianity bumps into false religions then Christianity wins and gets bigger, it's like nuclear explosion bumping into a molecule. But to fixate on not saying certain words is to ignore the power of Christianity and miss the point, it doesn't accomplish anything and suggests a kind of unnecessary worry about a little two syllable word. If anything, it's probably better to use the word more, with correct explanations that the commonly accepted notion of karma is nothing more than a mistaken application of God's mechanics onto a false god. If you go into all the micro details of it, most people aren't going to be impressed or even listen because they don't believe in that religion anyway....they just know the common man's "what goes around comes around" principle and to them "karma" is just a word to describe it. Let them know that the general principle is correct but incorrectly applied, and you'll reinforce the notion of God's sovereignty over all things.....even those that are credited to false gods.

Because of association. Who or what is "karma" associated with? Grab the average person on the street, and ask them. How many will say, "God"? How many will refer to the verse, "You reap what you sow"? Also note that there is no grace nor mercy in karma. Karma leaves no room for repentance and forgiveness. Likewise, karma is its own force. Although it may mimic a Biblical principle of reaping and sowing, it operates under a false pretext. And that is what makes it dangerous. Because of WRONG association. The notion of good begets good is genuine, applying it to a false god is wrong. Using the word "karma" without wrongly associating it with a false god is no more wrong than using Dec 25 as a celebration day for Christ's birth. Wrong. There is absolutely no comparison in your example. Karma is a blatantly pagan concept. Karma cannot be divorced and used in any manner you see fit. Karma cannot be separated from the ideology and worldview that created it. Karma is entirely based on the notion that man can work His way to perfection, and is far, far, far more than "reaping what you sow." Karma is meant to be a means of reward and punishment which as Neb said offers no grace or mercy, but also offers no standard by which to measure evil and is therefore, unjust as there is no means of establishing right from wrong. Bad Karma, furthermore, cann only be worked off in the next life, thus inextricablly linking it to the false teaching reincarnation. You obviously don't have a clear grasp on the concept of Karma and what it means. You are in no position, therefore, to instruct us on it. Well I'm sorry but in our society the word "karma" is commonly used but most people don't even know what god would be associated with it. It's generally understood as a principle that "gives back what we put in" good for good/evil for evil so if not divorced, it's already gaining an ever more distant separation, and to put things in perspective....Dec 25 isn't divorced for paganism either but Christians celebrate that all over the world. Get back to me in a few centuries.........I think it'll probably be pretty more comparable by then. What it's meant to be by some false religion doesn't matter because the false religion is false. To get worried about using a word because it's also used in a false religion is wrong because it gives too much respect to the particular word AND the false religion. It's like quoting something said by a non existent cartoon character...OR refusing to quote something just because you heard it in a cartoon. If the word works, I would use it but with clear reference to God.....I've used the term "God's karma" in the past and would do so again. The word "karma" is no threat to Christianity, but as when Christ's birth came to be celebrated on a pagan holiday, Christianity is the threat to the false religion. Go back to the original post of this thread and see how the poster defined karma, "what goes around comes around"....that is a principle that I believe in....as one preacher said "God wired the universe" to react one way to good and another way to evil. I believe we see a very watered down version of that reaction in our carnal lives and a full version in our afterlives. I believe people have been noticing this principle throughout history and the most popular word used to describe it ended up being karma. Those who don't apply it to the real God are wrong, but the principle is still there. As far as I'm concerned, it's comparable to assigning the law of gravity to Buddha or some other false god when it should be assigned to God. Gravity still exists and I honestly wouldn't care what word they used to describe it.

Because of association. Who or what is "karma" associated with? Grab the average person on the street, and ask them. How many will say, "God"? How many will refer to the verse, "You reap what you sow"? Also note that there is no grace nor mercy in karma. Karma leaves no room for repentance and forgiveness. Likewise, karma is its own force. Although it may mimic a Biblical principle of reaping and sowing, it operates under a false pretext. And that is what makes it dangerous. Because of WRONG association. The notion of good begets good is genuine, applying it to a false god is wrong. Using the word "karma" without wrongly associating it with a false god is no more wrong than using Dec 25 as a celebration day for Christ's birth.

I've read the KJV study Bible and am now going through the NLV study Bible. I think it's better to read different versions and to make sure they're study Bible's with lots of footnotes, explanations etc. The reason is that I seem to get different things from different Bibles.