Karma is the law of cause and effect. Period. That book is complete crap.
'Now as a man is like this or like that, according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will be be....'
That sounds more like a Psalm from the Bible than any Buddhist text I've ever read. In fact it sounds almost word for word from the Bible but I don't recall the passage name and number.
Thus, individuals who lived virtuous lives and fulfilled all their duties could expect rebirth into a purer and more honorable existence -
That is not an explanation of cause and effect it is a Hindu description of reincarnation. A really poor description. It sure isn't how reincarnation is described in Tibetan Buddhism and probably not any other form. But 'karma' is the law of cause and effect and nothing more. Either reincarnation happens or it doesn't. I have no knowledge about it one way or the other. If it does happen it has to follow the law of cause and effect. If it doesn't happen the law of cause and effect still exists. What you reap so shall ye sow. The proof of cause and effect is all around us.
If I am burned in a horrible fire and am suffering intense physical pain, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with desire.
Desire is a poor transliteration from the Sanskrit. Lust is also used, so is attachment and wanting. There is no English word that works perfectly. How did you get in the fire? Some action you took led you to get into that situation.
African baby that is born to a dying mother and is suffering from starvation - is he suffering because of desire? No, he's starving to death - he's in pain - are you telling me it's wrong for the baby to want and need food?
The desire for food causes the mental anguish does it not? In point of fact there comes a time in the starvation process where the pain ceases. Does the body stop needing food? No, the mind stops focusing on hunger and suffering is no longer experienced. Just like a drowning person experiences a state of euphoria after the pain and panic is let go of. The body is still going through a process of destruction. What has changed?
RIGHT as compared to whom or what? Who determines right?
Again the transliteration is difficult. It is not right as in right and wrong. Dualistic thinking is the problem. Right, as meant in the Eightfold path, means 'correct' in terms of "appropriate to the path." It has nothing to do with good/bad, right/wrong etc. It refers to what works, or at a minimum, what doesn't create problems for the practice. It has nothing to do with morals or ethics and no meaning outside the context of Buddhist practice. It isn't meant to.
One of the reasons for Buddhism's huge growth was that it avoided using the Sanskrit of the literary Vedas and used the vernacular speech that the people used - it was able to reach many more people that way and resonated with them. It took out the formality of working through the Brahmin priests so it was easy for people.
That doesn't make any sense to me. First of all the Vedas are very much a part of the Buddhist canon. But they are used and interpreted according to a completely unique Buddhist view. Hinduism, of which the Brahmin priests were a part of, had no Four Noble Truths. They don't recognize it or practice it AFAIK. Buddhism took a lot of cultural iconography from Hinduism and numerous other Indian religious and cultural practices but that's just cultural baggage having nothing to do with core Buddhist views.
The same thing happens with Christianity when it's introduced to new cultures. You can see that in American Indian Christianity, South Pacific, Asian and African Christianity to name a few. They all wed their cultural ideas, whether religious or not, into Christianity. None of which changes what Christianity is at its core. Same thing with Buddhism and East Indian cultural views which naturally includes Hinduism. Even the belief in reincarnation can be seen as cultural baggage. Cause and effect exists and works whether you believe in it or not.
I will grant you that Buddhists are generally good people and are peaceful and loving.
Garbage. "Buddhists" are just people like any other people. Just like Christians or people who follow any other religion only a small fraction take it seriously and do anything with it. The rest just like to associate themselves with a group they perceive as "good" and follow it when it suits them and do as they please when that suits them.
"and my confidence in karma makes [me] hope and fear both distractions rooted in focusing on the past or future."
All I did was mention that as a Christian I do not subscribe to the belief in karma. You could have just accepted my statement and moved on - but you chose to "correct" me. Incidentally, when I said I didn't believe in it, I wasn't insulting your belief, merely stating that I do not subscribe.
You are apparently very evangelical in your efforts to educate people on Buddhism (e.g. your "about page"), and likewise, I am evangelical in my beliefs. Thus, I do not like to see people make non-existent connections between Christianity and pagan ideologies.
The Christian belief in sowing what one reaps is vastly different from karma. Whether you believe in the Indian version of karma that I have read much about, or not, obviously only you know, and I will gladly admit on here that I know very little about Buddhism. I know some basic history, and some of the fundamental beliefs but I also know there are different forms of Buddhism and don't begin to pretend I understand the subtleties between them; but please, please do not try to equate any of this with Christian doctrine. Many people probably already believe this, and very erroneously so I might add. The term "karma" is tossed about frequently, even by so-called Christians.
Furthermore, you are the person who used terms such as, "that book is a bunch of crap" and so on and became extremely defensive. I never called you a liar; I only said that the things I have read did not did not agree with what you say you know. Of course, you are not about to let a "western" professor, or any textbook, or anything and everything I have read in the past 30 years on this topic get in the way. It obviously is all completely and totally in error, while you have the corner of the market on truth. At least I gave you some citations - you have given me nothing.
Regarding your statement:
"Buddhism comes from the east and is simply not understood by westerners",
All I can say is, "You understand it, right?" Shall I assume that you are not a westerner? Can a Buddhist understand Christianity, Judaism, or even Islam? You insist that karma is the same as the Christian belief of reaping and sowing. As a Buddhist, perhaps you just simply cannot understand Christian things.
As far as myself wanting to understand Buddhism, I only wish to understand it insofar as it helps me to better communicate the differences in my faith. It is not only important to know what Christianity teaches, but to know what others teach. The chasm between us is significant. Finally, I have great courage and conviction about Christianity, which is why I felt compelled to address the karma comment to begin with. I was not trying to, as you stated, "take [you] to task," so go ahead and post the whole conversation. I was trying to be polite and keep this off a McCain thread.