Karma and destiny: Why they don't make sense

[Scepcop]

I've been wondering about something. Are karma and destiny just a bunch of pure baloney and BS? How do you explain the following?

1. Is it always best to follow your destiny or to accept something that is "destined to be"? If so, then how come following one's destiny does not always have a positive outcome?

For example, in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul followed his "destiny" and became a follower of Christ and wrote some of the greatest books of the Bible, inspiring many Christians of his time up til the present. Yet he ended up being imprisoned by the Romans and then executed. Why did God let that happen? Is that how he rewards faith and obedience, by letting his follower get executed?

And in the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah followed his "destiny" too by serving as the mouthpiece of God and delivering ultimatums to the sinful people to get them to change their ways. He did what God wanted and did his will. Yet he ended up getting sawed in half in a log. In fact, many characters in the Bible ended up with a gruesome death or disappointing outcome (such as Moses). Why would God let that happen to those who follow his will and their destiny?

Now I'm not saying that these Biblical accounts are historical facts, but you get what I mean. Many people who have followed their destiny ended up dying or meeting a gruesome fate. Amelia Earhart did, and became a famous legendary female pilot and inspiration, but ended up vanishing during one of her missions. JFK followed his destiny and became a great US president, the last good genuine president that we had in fact, but he ended up getting assassinated. And his brother RFK was about to become president and follow his destiny too, yet he too got assassinated. Also, Martin Luther King Jr. followed his destiny and became a great civil rights leader for Blacks, uniting them, inspiring them and giving them hope, making waves throughout the country. Yet he too ended up getting assassinated.

If these people didn't follow their destiny, they probably wouldn't have been assassinated. So is it always a good thing to follow one's destiny? Or is it better to fight one's destiny, if it will lead to danger and more trouble than you can handle?

Destiny has a funny way of forcing its will in your life. If it really wants something, it will make you unhappy and make things go against you, until you follow your destiny. So it doesn't seem to really give you a choice whether to follow it or not. If you don't follow its path, then it blocks your chosen path with a wall, until you turn around and obey your destiny. Doesn't that suck? It shows how little control we have over our lives, doesn't it?

What do you think?

2. As to karma, something doesn't make sense here. If karma always gave one his/her just reward or punishment, then explain this:

How come George Bush, Tony Blair and Dick Cheney can start a war in Iraq, killing a million people in the process, many of which are innocent, yet nothing bad happens to them? They are richer than ever, above the law, and untouchable. How come karma doesn't do anything to them?

Yet JFK was a good president who was sincere, good hearted, compassionate, just and uncorruptible. He stood up for what was right and against the evil plans of the other branches of government. Yet he gets assassinated. Where is his good karma for being good? Why did karma let him get assassinated unjustly?

Also, RFK was also a very compassionate, kind, selfless, caring, and made the alleviation of suffering in the world the aim of his life. You couldn't find a more kind, pure and wholesome candidate running for president. Yet before he could become president, he got assassinated. What kind of karma was that? Why didn't karma reward him for his goodness and selflessness by saving his life or preventing his assassination? WTF is up with that?

It is said that when RFK was dying, his last words were "Is everyone alright?" because he cared more about others than himself. That's the kind of man he was. So why would karma let that happen to him? It doesn't make sense.

Same with Martin Luther King Jr. He did a lot of good for black people and civil rights. Yet karma lets him get assassinated too? Why? Where was his karmic reward for helping others?

And Gandhi stood for peace. He was noble and brave too. So why was he assassinated? And why didn't his good karma protect him?

Also, how come so many good wholesome selfless people die young? Hence the phrase, "Only the good die young". How does karma make sense in that?

Is it better to be evil than good, as long as you are in a high position of power above the law? How does karma fit in all this?

Any idea?

Some karma believers try to claim that such people receive their reward or punishment in the next life. But they have no proof of that. It's just a way of "sliding the issue away". So isn't that just a copout?

[Arouet]

You need to define destiny.

I don't think you understand the traditional meanings of karma - these are consequences that are supposed to happen over multiple lifetimes, according to those that believe in it.

I don't think there's much evidence in favour of either.

It is not true that "only the good die young". That's nonsense.

[Craig Browning]

There's a HUGE misconception when it comes to these issues (which happen to tie-in with the whole soothsaying thing).

DESTINY comes in a couple of flavors, if you would. . . there is that rarest of versions in which no matter what you do this and this WILL HAPPEN or you must be at a specific place at a specific time, etc. While this does carry a high level of Karmic weight to it, the reason behind it can vary; you may be paying off a huge bit of negative karma in one big dramatic shot or you could be taking a final exam of sorts, via which you will graduate up the spiritual ladder to the higher states of enlightenment and so forth.

The more common forms of destiny are 100% self-created. The catch is, one facet of this happens in the "now" as in your present lifetime and life setting; while the other facet stems from the planning you and your guides did prior to birth into your new life. This is the phase in which you live in the spirit realm and work towards bringing you karma further into balance, which is done through this planning effort. However, the map being drawn is multi-fold; that is to say that there isn't just one set path but many -- think of the infinity effect such as the picture of an artist painting a picture of an artist painting a picture of an artist painting a picture. . .you get the point -- basically you and your guides look at the cornerstones first; parentage and geography. Most of us return to the same family lines and geographic regions simply because we have created karma in those environs. However, those that would be our closest relatives have their FREE WILL just as we do and who we hope to have in our new life may not agree to such or for that matter, their own karmic obligations may mean that they will only be a part of your life for a brief point in time, which is why we have those scenarios in which parents die young, during childbirth, divorce, etc. and similarly, how we tend to find "parents" that have no genetic link to us whatsoever though they fulfill that role for us in amazing ways. . . or dreadful, depending on what you and they require.

KARMA does nothing outside of bringing balance to the universe, that's its only job. Those that choose to live on an active spiritual path consciously choose to that the time to spend in the spirit real and plot out this map. As I've tried to explain, it is filled with twists & turns -- alternative paths. Some will lead us back to the primary course we've laid out for ourselves and yet, others will take us far away from that course; maybe to a darker less humane path or even away from such cruelty and onto a course in which we are charitable and inspiring -- how many times have we seen an event transform a person's character and way of living?

FREE WILL and the fact that we really do create our destiny for the most part, starts long before conception. . . at least this is so for those of us that believe in the essence of the human spirit and higher consciousness -- the soul. Interestingly this is one of the oldest philosophies known to humankind; the existence of that soul-self and how it must endure repetitive life-times in order to learn and grow. . . to become as "god" -- a sentient being who is balanced in mind, heart and body as well as spirit and who can thus, guide others while they likewise continue their own trek towards perfection. . .

. . . but as one of my old mentors pointed out "what is perfection but an unobtainable goal? The instant you believe you have found it, you also find the flaw that proves the contrary for ego has interfered with your state of being"

If I recall correctly this mentor was a Seagull named Jonathon.

[Twain Shakespeare]

Destiny, fate, doom, fortune, kismet, lot, portion, all mean subtly different things. And, as Craig pointed out, Karma is an order of magnitude different still.

Totally ignoring any references to Judeo-Christianity-Islam, at great effort...

Fate. or Doom, what the Greeks called "Moira", and the related ideas of Karma came from the "Aryans" and a polytheistic world view. It is part of a world view that involves predestination. From the perspective of a man, the most definitive myth about fate is that of Oedipus, whose very efforts to escape his "fate" fulfilled it, yet who knew what it was to be a man. From the perspective of the gods, the most definitive myth about "Doom" is Odin appearing to save Ermaniac to fight Attila, tho it meant condemning his descendents to death. As the Greeks said, Force and Necessity know no master.

Christians wine too much. (pun intended) Destiny is different from the above. Destiny is a buzzword Christian culture folk bandy about as either a crutch, or a strawman. Like so much of Christianity, it is a garbage-in, garbage-out discussion.

I am no more qualified to discuss these strawman arguements than you appeared to be to discuss Karma. Craig showed this question "Some karma believers try to claim that such people receive their reward or punishment in the next life. But they have no proof of that. It's just a way of "sliding the issue away". So isn't that just a copout?" lacked all understanding of the philosophy of Karma, or dismissed it, as I dismissed "destiny" as garbage-in, garbage-out. If its the latter, as I suspect, SCECOP, because you are too smart not to know that was a strawman level objection, its your call. And I admit, if reincarnation is bs, karma at any level beyond "You reap what you sow" is also bs, and as dangerous as the errors of monotheism.

On the level of reaping what you sow, and force and necessity, as Malcolm X said of Dealey Plaza, the chickens come home to roost. Yashua, St Joan, MLK put themsleves in front in front of force, which knows no master.

By the way, the last time YHWH gave us a garden, it didn't work out well.

(Twain seems to be back in the building, but Shakespeare is slinking in the corners)

[Craig Browning]

I believe the proper letters are YHVH (Yod He Vav (or Vod) Hey) and his role in that whole early creation period is quite questionable, even from a theological point of view but especially for those with Gnostic leanings.

"What Goes Around Comes Around" is very true both, in the here and now experience as well as future (past) lifetimes. If we have invested time mastering music in this lifetime it will be part of our life in the next incarnation. On the other hand, if we are homophobic, racists bigots that justify our venom by way of the scriptures chances are strong we will come back as a person of color, gay and anything but a part of the Abrahamic Three.

Personally I think this way of "life" makes far more sense than some old dude with a book in one hand and if your name isn't in that book as someone that kissed his glowing butt in life, you are instantly damned to an eternal hell and if you did toe the line, you get an eternity without sex, booze, or anything else more exciting than playing a harp and strolling streets of gold while basking in his magnificence. . . sorry but the hell option sounds so much more exciting; at least you can feel something and are likely to find things of interest to do or talk about. . .

When it comes to spiritual traditions Karma & Reincarnation offer the most logical & balanced (fair) course of action one could ask for. It makes not promise of "eternal life" in the sense that Christianity & Islam do, nor does it leave wiggle room for justifying this or that prejudice, getting away with this or that sin, etc. It is a law of balance -- water finding its own proper level. If this is not how things are I'll have to side with the naysayers and accept that our sense of eternal life stems from placing nutrients into the ground which brings forth new life, new sustenance, and a new aspect of life that is in its own, perpetual.

Of course, we need to get rid of the over-priced boxes they put us in, the waste of real estate for the sake of bone box storage, etc.

[Scepcop]

There's something about karma I don't get. Suppose I did something wrong to someone, or even killed him. Now if he deserved it due to something he did in the past or bad karma in a past life, then I would have dealt him the karma he deserved. So in that sense, I would have been an agent of karma right? If so, then would I be punished and accrue bad karma for my action too? The thing is, if I was delivering someone his own karma, then why would I be guilty of anything?

But on the other hand, if he had no bad karma, then why would karma let me do something bad to him?

Have any of you ever wondered about this?

[NinjaPuppy]

[Craig Browning]

[ProfWag]

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]