• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Norway mosque shooting an 'attempted act of terror', police say

Road Less Traveled

Active Member
If you kill on purpose you will not gain a new life at all when you die from this life. -the reincarnation ends and the soul is destroyed beause the karma killing gives would be to heavy for a being to carry.

I ask because one who believes in reincarnation and karma, karmic debts/balances... would have to accept that that god or that buddah has to design the bad guys and their bad guy roles to get justice and make others with karmic debts suffer consequences.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Yes, because wanting to execute a terrorist who murdered 77 innocent people is totally the same as that terrorist killing those people. How completely stupid and offensive.
You said people like him and he probably thought the people he was killing were "dangerous monsters" (or being raised to be).

I'm not making a serious equivalence and was being deliberately provocative to hopefully make people think twice. Talking about killing people just because you don't like the idea of them existing, however justified the individual example might be, strikes me as a dangerous precedent.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
You said people like him and he probably thought the people he was killing were "dangerous monsters" (or being raised to be).

I'm not making a serious equivalence and was being deliberately provocative to hopefully make people think twice. Talking about killing people just because you don't like the idea of them existing, however justified the individual example might be, strikes me as a dangerous precedent.
It has nothing to do with "not liking the idea of them existing" as if it's some abstract ideological issue directed to an arbitrary group of people. It's about delivering justice for crimes. There is no point in keeping him locked up as he basically cannot be rehabilitated and won't feel remorse because he's not able to. He knew what he was doing, he was not having a psychotic break. He also enjoys the attention. So executing him really would be the more humane thing to do, as well as giving him his just desserts.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Well, as a member of the blue state of California which is predominantly democrat I've never heard average people here talk about banning guns. In fact, many of us including myself have guns. Our issue is reformatting the process to make it difficult for someone unstable to obtain a gun.

And that's great. Guns don't kill, people kill.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I ask because one who believes in reincarnation and karma, karmic debts/balances... would have to accept that that god or that buddah has to design the bad guys and their bad guy roles to get justice and make others with karmic debts suffer consequences.
Bad people have bad morality and that leads to evil deeds,
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
To put your question a little different, If someone killed my fianceè, would I want that person dead? The answer to that is no, I would not want that. It is more of a punishment to be in prison then to end the murderer's life. Why? Because if you put them in a cell with only food and nothing else to do, they will have a long time to think and suffer from what they did, if you kill them, how are they going to learn? I can not speak for what others want or should think, but in my view the death penalty is wrong.
Nothing you guys say will make me change that view.

And just before someone asks :) If someone did kill my fianceè I would be able to forgive them, not the first weeks or first month maybe, but i can forgive.

If imprisonment is worse than death ("more of a punishment") and killing results in Karmic soul destruction after death...

Are you not concerned about enduring a Karmic punishment worse than the destruction of your soul after you die (in the case that you cause someone to be imprisoned during this life rather than slain)?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
A car accident don't make you a killer. if you shoot someone or put a knif in them and they die, then ou by definition is a killer

If you kill someone, you're a killer. If you drink drive and hit someone you might be a killer but not a murderer (dependant on laws) but you are a killer.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
If imprisonment is worse than death ("more of a punishment") and killing results in Karmic soul destruction after death...

Are you not concerned about enduring a Karmic punishment worse than the destruction of your soul after you die (in the case that you cause someone to be imprisoned during this life rather than slain)?
No, i do not fear death
 

Road Less Traveled

Active Member
No, The man decided that he hated her and shot her, that as a man-made decision.

In a believed system of karma and reincarnation, how can one be sure who is innocent, who is guilty, what are ‘manmade decisions’ vs. what are ‘universal karmic decisions’ working through people?

I personally don’t know the guy, or what went down so I won’t personally pass judgement if I’m not 100% certain.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
In a believed system of karma and reincarnation, how can one be sure who is innocent, who is guilty, what are ‘manmade decisions’ vs. what are ‘universal karmic decisions’ working through people?

It is called evidence. I know this is foreign idea to the religious.

I personally don’t know the guy, or what went down so I won’t personally pass judgement if I’m not 100% certain.

This is nonsense and a horrible standard. 100% certainty is next to impossible.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I’m asking another who believes in reincarnation and karma.

Point stands regardless.



Why would it be a horrible standard to not judge someone or something I do not know without 100% of certainty?

Prove you are not a brain in a jar and all of reality isn't a simulation. I will wait. (Hint* You cant) Ergo 100% certainty is an absurd standard to hold.
 

Road Less Traveled

Active Member
Prove you are not a brain in a jar and all of reality isn't a simulation. I will wait. (Hint* You cant) Ergo 100% certainty is an absurd standard to hold.

If it’s an absurd standard to hold, why should anyone sane judge anyone or anything?

Wouldn’t only an absurd one do such?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
If it’s an absurd standard to hold, why should anyone sane judge anyone or anything?

As you reject the 100% standard and use one that isn't absurd. Accept the low chance of being wrong for a probability of being right that isn't next to impossible to meet. Accept the fact that you, I or anyone can make an error. Create a fail-safe to handle an incorrect conclusion like appeal courts ,which already exist.
 

Road Less Traveled

Active Member
As you reject the 100% standard and use one that isn't absurd. Accept the low chance of being wrong for a probability of being right that isn't next to impossible to meet. Accept the fact that you, I or anyone can make an error. Create a fail-safe to handle an incorrect conclusion like appeal courts ,which already exist.

A lot is possible with human nature. Made up stories, blackmail, planted evidence, agendas, framing, people judging people inaccurately for crimes they never committed and eventually exonerated of/ or never exonerated of, false witnesses, murder, scapegoating, mistaking the fact that I or you or anyone wouldn’t do something therefore others wouldn’t either, etc.

And then even the religious beliefs... the non-religious would have to take into account that they may be wrong and in error.

Even if you or I or anyone else were born as that guy... we may very well have done what he did, if he did.

One can only fail-safe so much. But yes, what can anyone that means well collectively do other than do what is in place?
 
Top