Afterlife and Pre-life

[Arioch]

@LG --

But that entity is not karma. It's a god who directs karma, there's a difference.

 

[wynn]

Can you show me indication that this world isn't, as you put it, the "alpha and omega of existence"? Even just a glimmer? No? Didn't think so.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your science.

Which is fine because the problem of evil was only developed to address the Abrahamic god. However the argument can be logically extended to any being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. When you brought karma into the discussion, a force which is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, it was merely a red herring.

Re-read from here onward:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2918873#post2918873

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

And there are more things that science has discovered than you could possibly imagine in your lifetime.

 

[Arioch]

Oh, and wynn, the deity directing karma is, by definition, not karma. Hence your argument is invalid.

 

[wynn]

Arioch's thinking process upon seeing a post by Wynn:

"Oh, a post by Wynn. Wynn is stupid. Let's see how I can interpret her post in such a way as to make it appear stupid."

:m:

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

You can stop talking out of your ass any day now. Randolph Carter knows that doing so will make it easier for people around here to take you seriously.

 

[wynn]

Spiffy. You're trying to pit societal pressure against me? How novel.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

If you want to see it that way then fine, Carter knows that you only see things your way anyway. However an alternative way to view this is that I'm attempting to help you work out your communication problems.

 

[wynn]

Of course you are. We all know that people skills are your forte!

And, of course, you love us all, deeply, and we are all eternally bound to you.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

My people skills are irrelevant to whether I'm right or not.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

But that entity is not karma. It's a god who directs karma, there's a difference.

which is why I asked what on earth made you think otherwise since I stated at the onset I was talking about the entity who directs it.

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

You post directly followed posts of my own talking about karma, not the deity that directs it, so it's understandable that I wouldn't get it since you not only failed to clarify what you were talking about but continued to do so. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you're talking about in the future rather than expecting everyone else to guess from your vague posts.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

You post directly followed posts of my own talking about karma, not the deity that directs it, so it's understandable that I wouldn't get it since you not only failed to clarify what you were talking about but continued to do so. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you're talking about in the future rather than expecting everyone else to guess from your vague posts.

I used bold typeface.

Do you need it colored red too?

:shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

You didn't mention the deity until much later, hence the confusion that followed naturally from your vague post.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

You didn't mention the deity until much later, hence the confusion that followed naturally from your vague post.

I'm not sure how you can interpret "the delegating end of karma" to not suggest a deity.

Perhaps you don't understand what the word "delegate" means?

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

It depends on what brand of karma you're talking about. The buddhist karma is delegated according to a set of rules, but there's no deity involved, it's just the way the universe works to them. Branches of hindu belief treat karma that way too.

Again, you didn't specify. If you don't specify something then you can't get snippy when people misunderstand you.

 

[wynn]

@LG --

It depends on what brand of karma you're talking about. The buddhist karma is delegated according to a set of rules, but there's no deity involved, it's just the way the universe works to them. Branches of hindu belief treat karma that way too.

Again, you didn't specify. If you don't specify something then you can't get snippy when people misunderstand you.

I introduced the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil_in_Hinduism

It is clearly stated there that the issue is understood in relation to God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil_in_Hinduism does not link to a Buddhist understanding of karma.

Did you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil_in_Hinduism when I posted the link to it, in post 97?

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Sorry, didn't see the link. Your posts tend to blur together into one long string of what the fuck.

 

[wynn]

@wynn --

Sorry, didn't see the link. Your posts tend to blur together into one long string of what the fuck.

How then, if you didn't even see the link, did you manage to reply to it, with:

@wynn --

The hindu gods and goddesses hardly meet the qualifiers I specified, and neither does the being that they(according to some hindus) emanate from. Neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, thus your rebuttal is invalid.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

There was enough context from your post to know that you were talking about hinduism, which is usually polytheistic but contains some monotheistic sects. However even their universal supreme deity isn't considered omnibenevolent.