Please Tell Me Karma Exists

[BookMan]

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

I don't think it's fair to compare Graham Hancock to Icke!

Maybe not fair, but is it accurate to do so?

[bangkaew]

---------

Edited January 3, 2012 by bangkaew

[bangkaew]

---------

Edited January 3, 2012 by bangkaew

[kerryk]

In answer to Bookman.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. From wiki.

[bangkaew]

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

I don't think it's fair to compare Graham Hancock to Icke!

Maybe not fair, but is it accurate to do so?

not at all. Hancock is a researcher and journalist. Icke believes some crazy things and basically believes everything he is told. Like iran's president, obama etc are actually on the same team and are 8' lizards!

[ludditeman]

not at all. Hancock is a researcher and journalist. Icke believes some crazy things and basically believes everything he is told. Like iran's president, obama etc are actually on the same team and are 8' lizards!

David Icke was also a researcher and journalist!

[Moonrakers]

From my understanding Graham Hancock is a proponent of the Malayan calendar nonsense.

I think it's fair to say that puts him in the same league as Icke.

They also share much of the same 'evidence' in the presentations

Edited January 3, 2012 by Moonrakers

[BookMan]

In answer to Bookman.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. From wiki.

I had a look at wiki..i found these sentences quite helpful ;

Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

I always thought theories could become laws. Of course i never thought about it too much. Thanks for putting that right in my head, always good to learn something new

[travelmann]

^^^ and I sure your Karma is to live your next life as a bar girl ^^^

I quite like the idea of having sex every night, and getting paid for it.

BRING IT ON!

Hmmmmmmmm but bad Karma might mean your getting it in an orifice where you might not want it??

[ludditeman]

^^^ and I sure your Karma is to live your next life as a bar girl ^^^

I quite like the idea of having sex every night, and getting paid for it.

BRING IT ON!

Hmmmmmmmm but bad Karma might mean your getting it in an orifice where you might not want it??

I'm not that limited in my sexuality.

[xandreu]

"Khama" in the supernatural sense that Westerners typically view it does not exist. It is not the same as the type of Khama that exists in Buddhism.

"Khama" in the Western sense, which in it's most basic form typically means "what goes around comes around" does not exist. For it to exist, it would involve a higher being or a higher force outside of our own consciousnesses directing, dictating or influencing the course of actions within our consciousnesses. And after several thousand years of human belief and scientific research, there is still no evidence whatsoever that it exists.

Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. Bad things happen to bad people. Good things happen to good people.

Good things and bad things, good people and bad people. They're all subjective. But whichever way you look at it, the ratio of good and bad will always be consistently random, regardless of the subject or the subjectee.

[travelmann]

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

I don't think it is fair to compare Graham hand to David Icke!

I knew David Icke when he was a sports reporter, great guy!

Me too at BBC Pebble Mill, Birmingham where and ex girlfriend worked for 15 years.

[travelmann]

"Khama" in the supernatural sense that Westerners typically view it does not exist. It is not the same as the type of Khama that exists in Buddhism.

"Khama" in the Western sense, which in it's most basic form typically means "what goes around comes around" does not exist. For it to exist, it would involve a higher being or a higher force outside of our own consciousnesses directing, dictating or influencing the course of actions within our consciousnesses. And after several thousand years of human belief and scientific research, there is still no evidence whatsoever that it exists.

Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. Bad things happen to bad people. Good things happen to good people.

Good things and bad things, good people and bad people. They're all subjective. But whichever way you look at it, the ratio of good and bad will always be consistently random, regardless of the subject or the subjectee.

Not quite true i reckon the MORE times you do bad things to PEOPLE (notice people) the more chance they will come back to haunt you but as rightly said not necessarily so.

[travelmann]

^^^ and I sure your Karma is to live your next life as a bar girl ^^^

I quite like the idea of having sex every night, and getting paid for it.

BRING IT ON!

Hmmmmmmmm but bad Karma might mean your getting it in an orifice where you might not want it??

I'm not that limited in my sexuality.

Well its one way to remove ear wax/nasal hair then?

Edited January 4, 2012 by travelmann

[bangkaew]

not at all. Hancock is a researcher and journalist. Icke believes some crazy things and basically believes everything he is told. Like iran's president, obama etc are actually on the same team and are 8' lizards!

David Icke was also a researcher and journalist!

David icke seems a lovely guy and who knows he might be right. But the difference between him and Hancock is that he thinks that absolutely everything was done by the negative agenda. The pyramids, stone henge, every PM and US President is/was a negative force. While Hancock ,in his research thinks that of course you have negative agendas, but it is not everything and that most things started off positive but sometimes they have been corrupted.

[johnbits]

I don't believe in karma in a literal sense that some people take it. Meaning everyone gets what they deserve all the time and this occurs because of some mystical force is making it happen.

But as a general tendency, I think karma exists, Meaning bad behavior often leads to bad things happening to those people, while good behavior is often eventually rewarded. I can see a number of logical and valid reasons for this to happen

Interesting discussion, it looks like my work is getting more busy, ciao

[KarenBravo]

Kharma in the Buddhist sense means what you do in THIS life-time affects the NEXT life-time.

What affects you during THIS life-time is a result of PREVIOUS life-times.

It doesn't mean do good get good, or do bad get bad in THIS life-time.

[ludditeman]

Kharma in the Buddhist sense means what you do in THIS life-time affects the NEXT life-time.

What affects you during THIS life-time is a result of PREVIOUS life-times.

It doesn't mean do good get good, or do bad get bad in THIS life-time.

There is a popular Thai Buddhist saying.

Tam dee, die dee, tam chua, die chua

(do good, get good, do bad, get bad)

[travelmann]

Kharma in the Buddhist sense means what you do in THIS life-time affects the NEXT life-time.

What affects you during THIS life-time is a result of PREVIOUS life-times.

It doesn't mean do good get good, or do bad get bad in THIS life-time.

There is a popular Thai Buddhist saying.

Tam dee, die dee, tam chua, die chua

(do good, get good, do bad, get bad)

and another goes tam te tam te tam te tam tam te tam te taaaaaam tam ( "The Archers" only UK folk will know)

[bangkaew]

Kharma in the Buddhist sense means what you do in THIS life-time affects the NEXT life-time.

What affects you during THIS life-time is a result of PREVIOUS life-times.

It doesn't mean do good get good, or do bad get bad in THIS life-time.

I am not a Buddhist so I would not know, but all the thais I have asked say that it is THIS LIFE. You break your leg, it is because of something done in this life.

[bangkaew]

re karma in dogs, there were 2 groups of nasty dogs here that used to attack my dogs. 1 group was poisoned and 1 group beaten to death. Karma? No idea, but they no doubt were killed because of their actions.

[F1fanatic]

re karma in dogs, there were 2 groups of nasty dogs here that used to attack my dogs. 1 group was poisoned and 1 group beaten to death. Karma? No idea, but they no doubt were killed because of their actions.

Yes, and those "nasty dogs" really understood the implication of their actions.

Then again, perhaps you should have stood up to those nasty dogs and proven to your dogs that you were able to protect them.

[F1fanatic]

Kharma in the Buddhist sense means what you do in THIS life-time affects the NEXT life-time.

What affects you during THIS life-time is a result of PREVIOUS life-times.

It doesn't mean do good get good, or do bad get bad in THIS life-time.

I am not a Buddhist so I would not know, but all the thais I have asked say that it is THIS LIFE. You break your leg, it is because of something done in this life.

But to look on the bright side - if you give enough money to the temple (merit making), all your wrongs are forgiven apparently.

[bangkaew]

re karma in dogs, there were 2 groups of nasty dogs here that used to attack my dogs. 1 group was poisoned and 1 group beaten to death. Karma? No idea, but they no doubt were killed because of their actions.

Yes, and those "nasty dogs" really understood the implication of their actions.

Then again, perhaps you should have stood up to those nasty dogs and proven to your dogs that you were able to protect them.

i completely agree with you. I had no ill feeling towards them. As I say, all behaviour is explainable. I was merely commenting.