Karma

[seekeratthesea]

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.

Irrelevant.

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,

Just because people don't understand it, doesn't suddenly make it suitable for Christian consumption.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[seekeratthesea]

I'm curious, seekeratthesea. What church do you go to? Have you asked your pastor why other Christians say Karma is not to be used within Christianity?

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

Edited July 21, 2008 by seekeratthesea

[OneLight]

I'm curious, seekeratthesea. What church do you go to? Have you asked your pastor why other Christians say Karma is not to be used within Christianity?

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

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

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's also not about karma being suitable for Christianity,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[stevehut]

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.

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.

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

I am very thankful that He knows when I say "karma" my heart means "you reap what you sow."

Don't be so impressed with yourself here.

Ignorance is never a virtue.

I'm not impressed with myself. I am impressed with God.

I don't appreciate being called ignorant, and with that insult I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation. It amazes me that as a Christian you can't disagree without insulting people.

I pray that karma doesn't come back to bite you too severely.

Be blessed.

[seekeratthesea]

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.

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's also not about karma being suitable for Christianity,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[seekeratthesea]

I'm curious, seekeratthesea. What church do you go to? Have you asked your pastor why other Christians say Karma is not to be used within Christianity?

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.

[stevehut]

It amazes me that as a Christian you can't disagree without insulting people.

You still don't get it.

I didn't call you ignorant. I said that we should all be sure to know the meanings of the words we use; to do otherwise, is ignorant.

And the definition if karma is not my opinion. It is what it is, no matter what I think.

[MorningGlory]

I am very thankful that He knows when I say "karma" my heart means "you reap what you sow."

Don't be so impressed with yourself here.

Ignorance is never a virtue.

Neither is rudeness.