To I Am/Jesus: If you look into systems science - you will see one more angle - a neutral and scientific one - which does not in any way invalidate your religion or your views - just shows the "system mechanics" of your beliefs on society etc. See e.g "complex adaptive system". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system You can use this "system philosophical view" to actually strengthen your religious views, and further deepen the understanding of religious effects on the environment, society, humanity etc. It is simply more insight and knowledge - not falsifying your religion - but may actually strengthen the moral foundation and faith. It is more about the understanding of the mechanics and integrity within the systems - and is totally interdisciplinary - just like philosophy itself. It does not pass "judgement" on the correctness of views - just simply observes and describes the relations and effects of any system - i.e insight and reflection. I think it is one of the more useful tools for reasoning that we have come across, since model theory and deductive systems - i.e logic. Also, unlike "logic", systems science does not invalidate logic from "faith" - i.e it accepts/is neutral to faith. It is a more "holistic view" of reality - instead of the reductionist way of reasoning so prolific in science as of today. Gödel's incompleteness theorem and all logics exclude faith from "reasoning and science", but systems science does not impose such limits - it is not a "limiting field of study".
You would surprise me greatly if you say you know anything about epistemic logic. Being pretty familiar with model theory myself, we can discuss epistemic logic if you want to... ? Especially since epistemology and phenomenology are my core interests in philosophy and psychology as well as in informatics; artificial intelligence, topic maps, structured languages, data structures, expert systems, natural deduction and all that.
Not true. This is not "either or". We have more than this life. As I have said free will works, as not all events are karmically originated. Further, karma is "fluid", there is good and bad karma so, going forward you can learn and eliminate your bad karma by creating good. Yes, there is a price to pay for each negative thought or action and do not let anyone tell you differently. I do not expect you to understand or see it my way but the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. You are a master of you ship, and your thoughts and deeds will ultimately control your life(s) NOTHING else, no Pope, priest, rabbi or any televangelist has any impact on you or I. Karma and reincarnation are age old concepts and precede Christianity.
If you put it a little different like: "if anyone fucks up the ecosystem, they will be sorry later" - then I agree with you...
Oh, come on. By saying that not all events are "karmically originated," you have an escape hatch to use the argument when it suits your purpose. As for negative thoughts, it need not reach into the realm of the mystical. Cognitive therapy has clinically shown that people's emotions and actions are governed by their thoughts. However, to deny the random element that exists in life is naive and only fostered by those who are afraid to admit that they are not in absolute control. (You may want to look into that condition, boyo.) We have more than one life? Really? As it happens, I'm having a sale on my next two. Do I hear any bids?
People like you, when saying "nah, I don't buy this and that" are actually insinuating; "I am the smartest person on the planet(!) and I KNOW how things are and nothing can exist outside of what I've leared/read, I am sooooo smart". I am awaiting for your Noble price, boyo....
Nice spin, but not exactly. You're the one who speaks with such certitude about matters for which there is absolutely no underlying evidence. The implication is that YOU know better. So that would make YOU the "sooooo smart" guy. In the absence of any meaningful evidence to support such fanciful notions as multiple lives (please!) and on-again-off-again karma (uh-huh), I choose to remain skeptical rather than to feign profundity. Boyo.
This is my last message on this matter; I do not care what you believe in. There is strong historical and cultural evidence of reincarnation and karma; this is not my invention or some pipe-dream. It offers seekers who cannot fathom a personal god (who does not heal) and accept a transcendental god, considering the state of humanity yet refuse the nihilistic mindset of the atheist. I am offering a simple logical explanation that; yes I am very certain off. Anyone with an attitude can dismiss it, or argue it. Since you offer no belief of your own, just negate mine I am thinking that you are just an argumentative guy who thinks very highly of himself. If you said, I don't think this and that BECAUSE of this... (insert logic) I would be more prone to listen. With you I simply have to ignore what you say. Iâm not to convince anybody here, boyo.