Bigoted Organization "Chic-Fil-A" infiltrates facebook

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure karma means what you think it means, BBS and RD.

[rdsrds2120]

I'm not sure karma means what you think it means, BBS and RD.

Maybe not. I only got a brief explanation of its inner workings by a shady guy in sunglasses last year at a bus station. Maybe his frightening demeanor was Karma on my end for something.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

According to the Buddhist interpretation, the child obviously had a bad former life--but not quite bad enough to be reincarnated as a cockroach? Buddhism on reincarnation and karma gets a little... incredible.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure karma means what you think it means, BBS and RD.

patches 2nd paragraph described karma well enough to me.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8#p3851686


If there's something refreshing you'd like to add, please do!

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure karma means what you think it means, BBS and RD.

Maybe not. I only got a brief explanation of its inner workings by a shady guy in sunglasses last year at a bus station. Maybe his frightening demeanor was Karma on my end for something.

-rd

Karma is cyclical and involved in reincarnation. Bad karma from a previous life can catch up to you in the next. Being good in a current life doesn't mean you'll have the bad karma in a previous one miss you. Being bad in a current life doesn't mean that you'll have it catch up to you in said current life.

But hey, I'm not an expert- that's just my general gist of what is likely far more complex than I can explain.

[patches70]

I'm pretty sure I never mentioned karma anywhere. No matter what lifestyle one chooses, be it that of the supposed "straight and narrow" to the "realm of depravity" or anywhere between, there are consequences and prices to pay.

Many find themselves unable to pay those prices, much to their ultimate displeasure in the end.

Consider the fellow who falls in love, does the right things and gets married only to find paying the price of fidelity ends up not worth it after ten or so years of marriage. In the ensuing affairs, lies, heartbreaks including all the legal ramifications of alimony, child support and social price, estranged from a full relationship with children among other things. Pay the piper one does.

It is this way for anything. What you see as "getting away" with it isn't always quite so clear. Maddoff is a nice example. He seemingly got away with it for years, decades. But it all crashed in on him one day. Forget him spending the rest of his life in prison, his own son killed himself over all this mess. Do you think ole Bernie Maddoff every truly considered the cost of his actions before hand? Whatever he might have imagined would happen when it all ended, the reality is probably a lot worse than he ever thought possible.

Few of us ever do. Even living the life as dictated by the church going elders exacts a price.

Not a damn thing to do with Karma. Only the universal law of cause and effect. The universe has a way of kicking your teeth in when you least expect it when you make unwise choices in life. Hell, one can make all the "right choices" in life (whatever those might be) and still end up bent over by fate with not even the benefit of vaseline.
If one wishes to call it karma, whatever, makes no difference to the reality that we all eventually reap what we sow. One way or another.....

[patches70]

According to the Buddhist interpretation, the child obviously had a bad former life--but not quite bad enough to be reincarnated as a cockroach? Buddhism on reincarnation and karma gets a little... incredible.

I'm pretty sure (but can't be certain obviously) that each of us only gets one life to live. That's why it's important to make the correct choices in life.

Who is to say what are the correct choices?
But each choice has a price, one is a fool to think otherwise. Though the price may not be so apparent at first. Look at the depressed, the suicidal, the so called "degenerates". Some are quick to blame everything else under the sun but if one were able to go through bit by bit along every choice, one would start to see a pattern and realize that the end result is because of previous choices and actions.

Straight, gay, honest, diabolical, untrustworthy, selfish, kind, generous, whatever trait, action or choice, it all costs something. There is a line to take, in theory, that leads to the most profitable and most importantly, happy life in the end. What that line is, of course, is a matter of debate it seems.

There are no free rides. That's all I'm saying. And trying to force other people to accept one's choices doesn't make the prices one pays any different at all. Whether it's the State that tries to fix the price or the Church or some other authority. The universe exacts it's own price and doesn't give a crap about anything else. Including one's happiness or life. The universe just doesn't care.

[Phatscotty]

I'm pretty sure I never mentioned karma anywhere. No matter what lifestyle one chooses, be it that of the supposed "straight and narrow" to the "realm of depravity" or anywhere between, there are consequences and prices to pay.

Many find themselves unable to pay those prices, much to their ultimate displeasure in the end.

Consider the fellow who falls in love, does the right things and gets married only to find paying the price of fidelity ends up not worth it after ten or so years of marriage. In the ensuing affairs, lies, heartbreaks including all the legal ramifications of alimony, child support and social price, estranged from a full relationship with children among other things. Pay the piper one does.

It is this way for anything. What you see as "getting away" with it isn't always quite so clear. Maddoff is a nice example. He seemingly got away with it for years, decades. But it all crashed in on him one day. Forget him spending the rest of his life in prison, his own son killed himself over all this mess. Do you think ole Bernie Maddoff every truly considered the cost of his actions before hand? Whatever he might have imagined would happen when it all ended, the reality is probably a lot worse than he ever thought possible.

Few of us ever do. Even living the life as dictated by the church going elders exacts a price.

Not a damn thing to do with Karma. Only the universal law of cause and effect. The universe has a way of kicking your teeth in when you least expect it when you make unwise choices in life. Hell, one can make all the "right choices" in life (whatever those might be) and still end up bent over by fate with not even the benefit of vaseline.
If one wishes to call it karma, whatever, makes no difference to the reality that we all eventually reap what we sow. One way or another.....

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm pretty sure I never mentioned karma anywhere. No matter what lifestyle one chooses, be it that of the supposed "straight and narrow" to the "realm of depravity" or anywhere between, there are consequences and prices to pay.

Many find themselves unable to pay those prices, much to their ultimate displeasure in the end.

Consider the fellow who falls in love, does the right things and gets married only to find paying the price of fidelity ends up not worth it after ten or so years of marriage. In the ensuing affairs, lies, heartbreaks including all the legal ramifications of alimony, child support and social price, estranged from a full relationship with children among other things. Pay the piper one does.

It is this way for anything. What you see as "getting away" with it isn't always quite so clear. Maddoff is a nice example. He seemingly got away with it for years, decades. But it all crashed in on him one day. Forget him spending the rest of his life in prison, his own son killed himself over all this mess. Do you think ole Bernie Maddoff every truly considered the cost of his actions before hand? Whatever he might have imagined would happen when it all ended, the reality is probably a lot worse than he ever thought possible.

Few of us ever do. Even living the life as dictated by the church going elders exacts a price.

Not a damn thing to do with Karma. Only the universal law of cause and effect. The universe has a way of kicking your teeth in when you least expect it when you make unwise choices in life. Hell, one can make all the "right choices" in life (whatever those might be) and still end up bent over by fate with not even the benefit of vaseline.
If one wishes to call it karma, whatever, makes no difference to the reality that we all eventually reap what we sow. One way or another.....

Would you admit that there are other people like Bernie Maddoff who cheated others of their wealth yet still died without ever being caught, and in their last moments, they realized that the benefits of their wrongdoing still outweighed the costs?

[BigBallinStalin]

According to the Buddhist interpretation, the child obviously had a bad former life--but not quite bad enough to be reincarnated as a cockroach? Buddhism on reincarnation and karma gets a little... incredible.

I'm pretty sure (but can't be certain obviously) that each of us only gets one life to live. That's why it's important to make the correct choices in life.

Who is to say what are the correct choices?
But each choice has a price, one is a fool to think otherwise. Though the price may not be so apparent at first. Look at the depressed, the suicidal, the so called "degenerates". Some are quick to blame everything else under the sun but if one were able to go through bit by bit along every choice, one would start to see a pattern and realize that the end result is because of previous choices and actions.

Straight, gay, honest, diabolical, untrustworthy, selfish, kind, generous, whatever trait, action or choice, it all costs something. There is a line to take, in theory, that leads to the most profitable and most importantly, happy life in the end. What that line is, of course, is a matter of debate it seems.

There are no free rides. That's all I'm saying. And trying to force other people to accept one's choices doesn't make the prices one pays any different at all. Whether it's the State that tries to fix the price or the Church or some other authority. The universe exacts it's own price and doesn't give a crap about anything else. Including one's happiness or life. The universe just doesn't care.

But aren't there some people who live and die without paying the full price of their wrongdoings?

And, suppose a child is born addicted to heroin. Regrettably, the social safety net of society failed to prevent this child's addiction, so the child pursued a life of addiction and became a miserable drug addict, who eventually overdosed and died. Since the child was born addicted, the resources of society failed to cure him, and the lack of quality control is due to government prohibition on heroin, how is this end result due to the child's decisions alone?

[Night Strike]

Sorry for hijacking this but I'm curious

If I could snap my fingers tomorrow and make a state with the perfectly implented and uncorruptable ideals that "church and state are completely separate and neither shall have any influence over the other" (and all other factors are identical) would you move there?

Of course not. I have never once advocated that religious people and precepts should not be involved in governing. It was the desire for religious freedom and expression for all people that caused this nation to be formed while at the same time those founders recognized that it required a moral and upright people to maintain that freedom for all people.

[jonesthecurl]

Karma (minus reincarnation) = "cast your bread upon the waters".

[Army of GOD]

Sorry for hijacking this but I'm curious

If I could snap my fingers tomorrow and make a state with the perfectly implented and uncorruptable ideals that "church and state are completely separate and neither shall have any influence over the other" (and all other factors are identical) would you move there?

Of course not. I have never once advocated that religious people and precepts should not be involved in governing. It was the desire for religious freedom and expression for all people that caused this nation to be formed while at the same time those founders recognized that it required a moral and upright people to maintain that freedom for all people.

I hope you realize you used a double negatory there

[jonesthecurl]

No he didn't not.

[crispybits]

Sorry for hijacking this but I'm curious

If I could snap my fingers tomorrow and make a state with the perfectly implented and uncorruptable ideals that "church and state are completely separate and neither shall have any influence over the other" (and all other factors are identical) would you move there?

Of course not. I have never once advocated that religious people and precepts should not be involved in governing. It was the desire for religious freedom and expression for all people that caused this nation to be formed while at the same time those founders recognized that it required a moral and upright people to maintain that freedom for all people.

So to rephrase to avoid the already pointed out double negative, you would argue that religious teachings and precepts should have some level of influence over secular law?

Are there limits to that influence in your own version of the best possible society, and if so how would you define those limits? Are the limits the same for all of the different flavours of religion?

[patches70]

Would you admit that there are other people like Bernie Maddoff who cheated others of their wealth yet still died without ever being caught, and in their last moments, they realized that the benefits of their wrongdoing still outweighed the costs?

I don't know. How could I know?

Certainly, there are people who cheat others and never get get caught by the State. But I'm not saying that only the State deals out the price.

How much is a good night's sleep worth to a person?
How much living in fear until it becomes akin to torture?
It's just not really quantifiable. Happiness and how much it's worth or even what it is.

There are negative consequences that you'll never see because you aren't that person.

But aren't there some people who live and die without paying the full price of their wrongdoings?

Who knows what the "full price" is? IDK, maybe. I know that the price paid for one's choices is often enough taken out on someone else. That is to say, it's another who ends up screwed by the universe. As in-

And, suppose a child is born addicted to heroin. Regrettably, the social safety net of society failed to prevent this child's addiction, so the child pursued a life of addiction and became a miserable drug addict, who eventually overdosed and died. Since the child was born addicted, the resources of society failed to cure him, and the lack of quality control is due to government prohibition on heroin, how is this end result due to the child's decisions alone?

The mother's decision to use heroin while pregnant exacts a heavy price. Does it not? Blaming the government's ban on heroin doesn't alter the price does it? If heroin was legal, the mother still addicts her child does she not?

Do you think a better quality heroin reduces addiction? Will a mother using high quality, pure heroin while pregnant still addict her unborn child?

A heroin addict uses heroin and in the beginning thinks the heroin makes them happy. Happiness is the key is it not? Is not that the reason for the pursuit of just about everything we human beings pursue? Is that not the underlying condition affecting almost every decision we make?

The smoker lights the cig because of the pleasure he feels with that first drag.
The user loves that rush.
The thief, the fraud loves that money and the things it gets them.
That young teenager gets high on lust thinking of his GF naked and spread before him as he bangs her without condom or protection.
It all comes down to happiness. At the moment, the person thinks they are doing what ultimately will bring them happiness only to find that what they thought they wanted brings about a ton of other baggage they didn't consider. The price of their choices, which not only affects them, but also others and society in ways that are often enough unpredictable and undesirable in the end to those involved. Unintended consequences but always in hindsight completely logical as to the end result.

[jay_a2j]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

So you believe in the unification of church and state?

The phrase "separation of church and state" is (not surprisingly) being misrepresented. The idea was to avoid what took place in England with the Church of England. A church run by the state. In Jefferson's letter, the phrase "separation of church and state" was to protect the CHURCH from the STATE not the other way around, but liberals wasted no time in distorting this phrase's meaning.

[Night Strike]

Sorry for hijacking this but I'm curious

If I could snap my fingers tomorrow and make a state with the perfectly implented and uncorruptable ideals that "church and state are completely separate and neither shall have any influence over the other" (and all other factors are identical) would you move there?

Of course not. I have never once advocated that religious people and precepts should not be involved in governing. It was the desire for religious freedom and expression for all people that caused this nation to be formed while at the same time those founders recognized that it required a moral and upright people to maintain that freedom for all people.

So to rephrase to avoid the already pointed out double negative, you would argue that religious teachings and precepts should have some level of influence over secular law?

Are there limits to that influence in your own version of the best possible society, and if so how would you define those limits? Are the limits the same for all of the different flavours of religion?

Yes, that was the intent of my double negative statement.

If a religious teaching is to be used in law, it must not infringe upon the rights of other religions, favor one religion over another, and must have a secular purpose. However, secular laws should also refrain from infringing on the rights of people to express religious views while in public (suing to remove crosses from anywhere in public, forcing religious employers to go against their beliefs, etc.).

[crispybits]

OK, seems reasonable. Would you also agree with the statement that a person's religious beliefs will impact on most aspects of their life, even when they are not conciously and deliberately following any specific religious observance or practice? For example do christian values extend outside of those times when you are in church and govern your behaviour when out bowling with friends, or doing your job, or studying at school, or driving down the highway?

[GreecePwns]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

So you believe in the unification of church and state?

The phrase "separation of church and state" is (not surprisingly) being misrepresented. The idea was to avoid what took place in England with the Church of England. A church run by the state. In Jefferson's letter, the phrase "separation of church and state" was to protect the CHURCH from the STATE not the other way around, but liberals wasted no time in distorting this phrase's meaning.

So when one tells you that certain churches want to marry homosexual couples and are practicing their religion in doing so, you won't use the reasoning of "they are not real Christians" to stop them from doing so. Got it.

[Night Strike]

OK, seems reasonable. Would you also agree with the statement that a person's religious beliefs will impact on most aspects of their life, even when they are not conciously and deliberately following any specific religious observance or practice? For example do christian values extend outside of those times when you are in church and govern your behaviour when out bowling with friends, or doing your job, or studying at school, or driving down the highway?

That's the goal (even if it doesn't always happen).

[jay_a2j]

So when one tells you that certain churches want to marry homosexual couples and are practicing their religion in doing so, you won't use the reasoning of "they are not real Christians" to stop them from doing so. Got it.

Are you kidding? Today's churches (many of them) are not preaching the Word of God. Many false doctrines have crept their way into their sermons . Bottom line..... hold fast to the truth of Gods Word and pray for those who violate, twist or distort it.

[GreecePwns]

Are they practicing their religion, or at least their own brand of your religion?

[crispybits]

OK, that seems reasonable too.

The trouble is that the two are incompatible.

If a religious teaching is to be used in law, it must not infringe upon the rights of other religions, favor one religion over another, and must have a secular purpose.

a person's religious beliefs will impact on most aspects of their life, even when they are not conciously and deliberately following any specific religious observance or practice?

(yes I know the second quote isn't your words but you have agreed with the statement)

If religious belief is ideally to be a kind of moral and ethical compass in every aspect of your life, then any moral or ethical considerations which religion attempts to influence into secular law must be agreeable to all religions within that state. If they are not it does not mean that those values are not valid, but rather than some other justification must be present in order to influence the secular law.

How many basic religious precepts, let alone the more muddy and obscure ones, would meet agreement with all of the following:

Christianity
Judaism
Islam
Baha'i
Buddhism
Hinduism
Jainism
Sikhism
Native American religion
Paganism
Scientology
Satanism

(consider also that most of the religions on that list, all of which are recognised religions in the USA, have various different internal schisms, sects and denominations)

Religion should not have any meaningful impact over secular law, because by doing so someone, somewhere will have their own religious freedoms violated. Therefore a true and complete and total separation of church and state is the only possible way to run things.

Unless you're going to say what jay just did, that "only MY religion is the true religion". In which case you better be prepared to back it up with some damn good arguments as to why only you and the people who go to your church and practice your denomination have access to the true word of God.

[jay_a2j]

Are they practicing their religion, or at least their own brand of your religion?

I don't have a religion. Religion is man made.