What can you say about the following claims?

[rossum]

Rossum: I have two simple questions for you. The situation is this: You are walking in a park, You see a young girl being attacked by several men. She is screaming for help. You have a cell phone and can easily call 911 with no threat of harm to you.

In an English park I would call 999 rather than 911 since the English police will probably get there a lot faster than the American police.

1. Do you know it is absolutely morally right and good for you to want to try to help this girl in this situation?

Two questions for you:

1. The year is 50 BCE in Palestine. I see a Jewish woman flagrantly committing adultery. Is it absolutely morally right and good for me to follow God’s law and stone her to death as Mosaic law prescribes?
2. The year is 50 CE in Palestine. I see a Jewish woman flagrantly committing adultery. Is it absolutely morally right and good for me to follow God’s law and tell her to “Go and sin no more,” as Jesus’ law prescribes?

I do not need to have an “absolute” morality. All I need is a morality that works here and now, as with the example of the punishment for adultery. Here and now I call 999. I do not have time to check what the correct answer will be in 500,000 years time just so I can be sure the moral law I am following is absolute rather than temporary.

add the fact to this hypothetical event, that the young girl is your daughter. Does that change your answers?

No. “Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91. Her relationship to me makes no difference.

Is your position that you do not know that it would be absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil for someone to kill billions of people because they wanted to?

And if that someone is God, who decides to flood the entire world and kill all people on it except eight in a big boat? My position is that moral law (karma) applies to all living beings, gods included, so yes such a killing would be immoral even if done by YHWH.

What do you mean by “absolute” morality? Is an absolute morality unchanging for all time? Is an absolute morality unchanging in all situations? Does an absolute morality apply to all living beings?

rossum

 

[Karmartia]

The faithful Catholic is very sure that Christ’s Church established by God’s Son leads the way to salvation, in the fullness of truth.

And I believe that too, but it requires an effort on the part of the individual, otherwise there would be no fallen Catholics. A person could be having difficulty determining their beliefs and exposure to Catholic doctrine could certainly point them in the direction of conversion. This is what happened with me.

Dissent is public opposition to the Magisterium of Christ’s Church, to Her dogma or doctrine. As we have a moral obligation to accept Christ’s truths, which we have freely accepted, there is, and can be, no justification for such dissent.

I was speaking of dissent in general, not just public opposition to the Magisterium. However, I alluded to that with the caveat of willingness to accept the resultant consequences. Actually, Church history is full of the stories of great dissenters. St. Francis was a dissenter. For that matter, the Hebrews considered Jesus a dissenter. There are various levels of dissent. One can dissent without resorting to heresy, but one must be careful and certain, for the sake of one’s immortal soul.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Rossum, you say: “I do not need to have an “absolute” morality. All I need is a morality that works here and now” But I asked you; 1. Do you know it is absolutely morally right and good for you to want to try to help this girl in this situation? Do you know it is absolutely, morally wrong and evil for you to say effectively, “I see no reason to call 911 for her”? Please answer these two questions directly, using as much of the question as possible in the answer.
Saying you would call 911 or 999 does not answer the crux of my question.
Then answer the question with the added hypothetical daughter. Are you going to say that you do not know that “it is absolutely morally right and good for you to want to try to help this girl (your daughter) in this situation”?

You say “And if that someone is God, who decides to flood the entire world and kill all people on it except eight in a big boat? My position is that moral law (karma) applies to all living beings, gods included, so yes such a killing would be immoral even if done by YHWH.” In my questionn I positted that the reason is they “wanted to”. If God allows people to die, or actually takes their lives, obviously He is justified in His actions and because we know He is infinite Love, we therefore know that this is the best possible end for them as they enter eternity after death.
How can an infinitely good God do something immoral? How can there be many “gods”? Don’t you understand there can only be one infinite Creator God? Do you not understand that it can not make any sense to have many “gods” because then none of them are the “One, Infinite, Creator God”? If there is no One, Infinite, Creator God; then how can there be anything absolutely right and good in searching for Truth? Or caring for someone? Are you going to say there is nothing inherently, absolutely, right and good in caring for, wanting to help, a little baby?
You ask: “What do you mean by “absolute” morality? Is an absolute morality unchanging for all time? Is an absolute morality unchanging in all situations? Does an absolute morality apply to all living beings?”
last question first:
The absolute, objective moral Law applies to all sentient beings, humans and angels, who have Free will, according to their understanding and knowledge. A two day old human baby des not understand that it is absolutely, objectively, morally, wrong and evil to murder some person.
next to last question: The absolute objective moral Law is summed up in the phrase: “Love one another as I have Loved you”. As people learn more about the Law and by God’s gift of understanding and His grace, they are able to see more and higher aspects of the Law and so they will see a more complete view of all that is objectively right and good and this may seem to others as appearing to deny the absoluteness of the moral Law. Sometimes it is right and good for a Father to punish a child severely for an infraction, sometimes mercy is called for by the same Law. The law is for the parent to burn with a desire to help the child choose to always do what is objectively right and good.
previous question: " Is an absolute morality unchanging for all time?" Yes, with the same understanding as above for the knowledge and understanding of the person making the choices. How much has God revealed to them in their conscience? How much more should they know but do not because they chose not to seek to know and God did not violate their free will?
First question: “What do you mean by “absolute” morality?” Our consciences tell us what we SHOULD do. This is God speaking to us concerning His Law. When our consciences tell us a certain action is morally wrong and evil, we are bound to obey our consciences. If we have refused to seek to know what God wants us to know, then we may see a lot of grey, rather than black and white. If we do as we should and seek His Law, we will know and understand more and more. But the Law does not change. The Law is still to “Love one another as I have Loved you. (This is what Jesus issaying as He hangs on the Cross)(This is thelove He calls usto follow.)”

 

[rossum]

Douglas, it would help if you could use the quote function, the button at the bottom right of each post. Alternatively, just put [noparse]

This is some quoted text.

[/noparse] to get

This is some quoted text.

[Rossum, you say: “I do not need to have an “absolute” morality. All I need is a morality that works here and now” But I asked you; 1. Do you know it is absolutely morally right and good for you to want to try to help this girl in this situation? Do you know it is absolutely, morally wrong and evil for you to say effectively, “I see no reason to call 911 for her”? Please answer these two questions directly, using as much of the question as possible in the answer.

Before I can answer your questions I need to know what meaning you attach to “absolute” in the context of your question. The point of my two questions about the morality of stoning an adultress was to try to get at your definition.

If you can tell me what you see as the difference between an absolute and a non-absolute morality then I can answer your questions.

You say “And if that someone is God, who decides to flood the entire world and kill all people on it except eight in a big boat? My position is that moral law (karma) applies to all living beings, gods included, so yes such a killing would be immoral even if done by YHWH.” In my questionn I positted that the reason is they “wanted to”. If God allows people to die, or actually takes their lives, obviously He is justified in His actions and because we know He is infinite Love, we therefore know that this is the best possible end for them as they enter eternity after death.

So my answer to your question is different to your answer. My answer is that in all cases the act is wrong, in Buddhism all the gods are subject to karma, including YHWH. Your answer is obviously different. It is not absolutely wrong, but depends on who is doing the killing.

How can there be many “gods”?

Scripture tells me so:Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Sûrya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhâsaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virûdhaka, the great ruler Virûpâksha, the great ruler Dhritarâshtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Îsvara and the god Mahesvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakdyika gods.

Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter 1
Look at the top right of my posts, where it says “Religion: Buddhist”. The Buddhist Tripitaka is my scripture, not the Bible.

The absolute, objective moral Law applies to all sentient beings, humans and angels, who have Free will, according to their understanding and knowledge. A two day old human baby des not understand that it is absolutely, objectively, morally, wrong and evil to murder some person.

We disagree. Gods are sentient and moral law applies to them as well.

previous question: " Is an absolute morality unchanging for all time?" Yes, with the same understanding as above for the knowledge and understanding of the person making the choices. How much has God revealed to them in their conscience? How much more should they know but do not because they chose not to seek to know and God did not violate their free will?

If morality changes from situation to situation then I cannot see how it is absolute. To me “absolute” implies “unchanging in time”.

First question: “What do you mean by “absolute” morality?” Our consciences tell us what we SHOULD do. This is God speaking to us concerning His Law. When our consciences tell us a certain action is morally wrong and evil, we are bound to obey our consciences. If we have refused to seek to know what God wants us to know, then we may see a lot of grey, rather than black and white. If we do as we should and seek His Law, we will know and understand more and more. But the Law does not change. The Law is still to “Love one another as I have Loved you. (This is what Jesus issaying as He hangs on the Cross)(This is thelove He calls usto follow.)”

You are not being consistent here. We are fallible and can make mistakes. If we follow our consciences then we will make errors; a Crusader may well have been following his conscience when killing heretics and unbelievers but that did not make his actions right.

rossum
[/quote]

 

[Abu]

Karmartia
I was speaking of dissent in general, not just public opposition to the Magisterium. However, I alluded to that with the caveat of willingness to accept the resultant consequences. Actually, Church history is full of the stories of great dissenters. St. Francis was a dissenter.

Dissent is defined by the CDF, and refers specifically to dogma or doctrine. No Saint has ever dissented without recanting and that includes St Francis.

Again, the faithful Catholic is no dissenter. Part of the problem with real dissent today is the failure to define truth from error and fidelity from infidelity.

 

[Karmartia]

Dissent is defined by the CDF, and refers specifically to dogma or doctrine. No Saint has ever dissented without recanting and that includes St Francis.

Again, the faithful Catholic is no dissenter. Part of the problem with real dissent today is the failure to define truth from error and fidelity from infidelity.

Okay, suppose I said that life does not begin at conception but at 40 days (the knitting of the bones) or like Aquinas at 116 days (the quickening), would I be denied Communion? No. Because, the doctrine that states that life begins at conception is not a dogmatic truth. Not yet, at least. I can dissent without being heretical. If I were to say that God does not exist in Trinity, then I would be dissenting to the point of heresy, because this is an established dogmatic truth. My personal view is that life most certainly begins at conception, and God most certainly exists in Trinity, but I may dissent on some other point that is not dogma. That doesn’t make me a heretic.

 

[Abu]

It helps to know what the Church teaches:

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” (A dogma).

A defined doctrine on faith or morals must be firmly embraced and held, on the faith of the Church. (Canon 750 #2). Teaching on morals is usually doctrine. Public opposition to the Magisterium is dissent.

On abortion, theological speculation is not a part of doctrine. There is no question about the grave evil of abortion as taught by the Church.

“Catholicism has always held that the direct attack on an unborn fetus, at any time after conception, is a grave sin. The history of this teaching has been consistent and continuous, beginning with the earliest times and up to the present.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 334-5). [CCC 2271].

“I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine… is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium…Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, …” (Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, # 57, John Paul II, 1995).

 

[twinc]

As we’ve seen Jesus empowered His Apostles to forgive sins, and He established His Church on Peter the Rock to teach all that He commanded. So knowingly to rebel against His commands would be gravely sinful. Mortal sins are essentially matter for sacramental confession. It is good to confess venial sins, also.

I am not quite sure it was the Apostles or was it the disciples,which of course could be you and I - twinc

 

[Abu]

twinc,
Jesus empowered only His apostles to forgive sins, not disciples, and Peter was empowered with primacy and infallibility when defining faith or morals. A Catholic needs to know that he is sure on what Christ teaches through His Church.

 

[twinc]

twinc,
Jesus empowered only His apostles to forgive sins, not disciples, and Peter was empowered with primacy and infallibility when defining faith or morals. A Catholic needs to know that he is sure on what Christ teaches through His Church.

It seems it was the disciples,including women,except Thomas who was not empowered[Jn.20:18-24] - twinc

 

[Abu]

twinc
It seems it was the disciples, including women, except Thomas who was not empowered[Jn.20:18-24]

Women were not, and are not, ordained priests, and only priests may administer the sacrament of Penance. Only the Apostles were commissioned by Christ when He appeared to them after the Resurrection. As one of the eleven Apostles, Thomas received the same power although he was absent. This power was given to their lawful successors also. No others were commissioned by Christ personally.
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 550-551].

 

[alitaptap]

Agree. A person with red-green colour blindness, a person with ordinary trichromat sight and a person with tetrachromat sight will disagree on the colour of something. We can never know the “real” world, all we can know is what our brains get incoming along our sensory nerves.

Do you agree that being honest and generous are good and breaking an oath and rape are bad?

 

[rossum]

Do you agree that being honest and generous are good and breaking an oath and rape are bad?

In general yes. I would not be honest if the Nazis came and asked about the Jewish family hiding in my basement for instance, but in general yes.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Before I can answer your questions I need to know what meaning you attach to “absolute” in the context of your question. The point of my two questions about the morality of stoning an adultress was to try to get at your definition.

If you can tell me what you see as the difference between an absolute and a non-absolute morality then I can answer your questions.

       An absolute, objective moral order is one which must be ordained by an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-loving Creator God who created all that exists. This order is not subjective according to individual human opinions. Black is black and white is white, but there are circumstances that have various factors, some of which are black and others that are white. People call them grey and find it difficult to look at each factor and weigh each correctly to understand what should be done. If people look at only grey for a long time, many times they forget the black and white and throw up their hands in despair  saying "who can know?" and sometimes stop trying to know what is right and wrong. They take the easy way out.

A non-absolute morallity is one based solely on personal opinions.
My question concerning the park and the attackers and the girl was ment to get you to acknowledge (focus on what you really know) that you know it is objectively right to care about people and that since we all have a responsibility to try and help people in need when we can, you should have decided to help her because there is an objective Law that is above mankind that tells you it is wrong for you not to care or to not try. Do you know it is absolutely right and good for you to do all you can to help the girl in my scenario?

 

[rossum]

rossum;6409234:

Before I can answer your questions I need to know what meaning you attach to “absolute” in the context of your question. The point of my two questions about the morality of stoning an adultress was to try to get at your definition.

If you can tell me what you see as the difference between an absolute and a non-absolute morality then I can answer your questions.

       An absolute, objective moral order is one which must be ordained by an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-loving Creator God who created all that exists.

Then Buddhist morality is not absolute, by your definition. There is no All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-loving Creator God who created all that exists in Buddhism. The Brahmajala sutta is relevant here.

A non-absolute morallity is one based solely on personal opinions.

Then Buddhist morality is not non-absolute, by your definition.

Buddhist morality is based on Karma – actions have consequences. Karma is not a God and has none of the attributes that you required in your definition above. Karma is external to the person and is not based on personal opinions. Karma is more like gravity, it is built into the universe.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

• Dhammapada 1:1-2
  Buddhism has no concept of sin, nor does it have the concept of the forgiveness of sin. Actions have consequences and once you have done the action the consequences are unavoidable. Buddhists should think very carefully before they act.

My question concerning the park and the attackers and the girl was ment to get you to acknowledge (focus on what you really know) that you know it is objectively right to care about people and that since we all have a responsibility to try and help people in need when we can, you should have decided to help her because there is an objective Law that is above mankind that tells you it is wrong for you not to care or to not try. Do you know it is absolutely right and good for you to do all you can to help the girl in my scenario?

Is it right for me to help her? Yes, of course. Is it “absolutely right”? By your definition of absolute, no it is not because your definition of absolute includes the irrelevant factor of a creator God. It is right to help her because morality requires it and the Buddha tells us to follow morality. To act against morality is to act foolishly and short-sightedly.

“Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra, 91.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Is it right for me to help her? Yes, of course. Is it “absolutely right”? By your definition of absolute, no it is not because your definition of absolute includes the irrelevant factor of a creator God. It is right to help her because morality requires it and the Buddha tells us to follow morality. To act against morality is to act foolishly and short-sightedly.

“Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra, 91.

rossum

You say, “Is it “absolutely right”? By your definition of absolute, no it is not because your definition of absolute includes the irrelevant factor of a creator God. It is right to help her because morality requires it and the Buddha tells us to follow morality.” My question is WHO says it is RIGHT to help her? Buddha? If “morallity requires it”, where did morality come from? If morality is something more than the physical world, more than matter and space, something spiritual, how can something spiritual come from something less than it, from the material?
If your karma has none of the attributes of my Creator God, how does it decide what is right and wrong? How does it think? If it does not think, it just is, and someone says their karma tells them they are justified in killing billions of innocent people, DO YOU SAY IT IS EVIL FOR THEM TO KILL THOSE BILLIONS? Who decides what karma is in each specific circumstance? Each person? Do you see that it appears to be no different in practice from each person decides what is right and wrong, completely subjective? Whatevidence do you have that shows you it is sustantively different?

 

[rossum]

rossum:

Is it “absolutely right”? By your definition of absolute, no it is not because your definition of absolute includes the irrelevant factor of a creator God. It is right to help her because morality requires it and the Buddha tells us to follow morality.

My question is WHO says it is RIGHT to help her? Buddha? If “morallity requires it”, where did morality come from? If morality is something more than the physical world, more than matter and space, something spiritual, how can something spiritual come from something less than it, from the material?

The universe contains all that exists. That includes both the material and the spiritual. Karma is one of the spiritual aspects of the universe that also has an impact in the material.

If your karma has none of the attributes of my Creator God, how does it decide what is right and wrong?

Karma is an impersonal force. It no more ‘decides’ than gravity decides that things will follow a particular path.

If it does not think, it just is, and someone says their karma tells them they are justified in killing billions of innocent people, DO YOU SAY IT IS EVIL FOR THEM TO KILL THOSE BILLIONS? Who decides what karma is in each specific circumstance? Each person?

Think of karma as more like gravity and then rephrase your question: “Who decides what gravity is in each specific circumstance? Each person?” The answer is obviously that gravity is what gravity is in each circumstance, no person gets to decide. Similarly with karma; no person gets to decide what karma is. All you can do is to act wisely in the light of karma. Just as you would not jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute because of the painful consequences of that act, so you would not kill a billion people because of the deleterious consequences of that act. Note that karma applies to all living beings, gods included. Actions have consequences and you will undergo those consequences at some point in the future; if you throw a rock straight up then at some later time that rock is going to hit you on your head.
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

• Dhammapada 1:1-2
  There is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sins in Buddhism. Karma is not merciful, all actions have consequences. If you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

rossum; you say, “Karma, is an impersonnal force” and that the “gods” must obey it (or else suffer the consequeces), and yet it is a spiritual aspect of existance. You say there is no concept of sin in buddism, there are no intrinsically evil actions because there is no All-Powerful Creator to make an objective, moral law.
The question is, since this ‘karma’ is not an infinitely powerful force and it is not All-Knowing, there is a limit to it’s effect, buddists might “beat” karma in certain circumstances and avoid the natural consequences until they die a natural death. So a buddist might be ingenius enough to figuire out how to brutally rape, torture, and kill his wife and three young daughters and collect the insurance money from their deaths and you wouldn’t say that the buddists did anything objectively evil? Would you tell your wife and daughters (if you had a wife and daughters, of coarse) that if someone did that to them, that that person would not have violated any objective law and it would not have been intrinsically evil or a sin against anyone? Since you say there is no All-Powerful Creator God, then does it follow that people do not have any inalienable Rights or correspnding responsibilities? If not why not? How does an impersonnal force that is not all-Powerful and all-knowing give Rights or enforce responsibilities? Since this force is not infallible, what happens when it gets it wrong and makes innocent people suffer, or in the case of Jesus Christ, who never sinned, why should he have died as he did? All he did was good, he never wronged anyone, if his reward is in heaven, how does a finite, not all-powerful force give infinite reward?

 

[Abu]

It’s good to know how reason leads to the Almighty God. This is from a former atheist turned deist.

LONDON, November 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) –
Former Darwinian atheist philosopher Antony Flew has published a new book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, to explain his move from being one of the world’s leading exponents of the pure materialist Darwinian philosophy to belief in the existence of a personal deity who created the universe.
Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as “legendary”, first announced his discovery of “a god” in 2004. Flew had been one of the 20th century’s leading proponents of the pure atheistic Darwinian doctrines that categorically reject any possibility of a creative divine being. His ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK’s most virulent opponent of religious belief.
In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism.
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

The former atheist Antony Flew has come to a belief in God because he examined the mounting evidence of scientific and natural discoveries especially in the field of DNA, and adhered to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it leads. His conclusion was that nothing else but a Supreme Intelligence could explain its own existence as well as the creation of the world.

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

“Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe. Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.

“Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.”

 

[rossum]

rossum; you say, “Karma, is an impersonnal force” and that the “gods” must obey it (or else suffer the consequeces), and yet it is a spiritual aspect of existance.

Correct.

You say there is no concept of sin in buddism,

Correct. There is neither sin nor the forgiveness of sin.

there are no intrinsically evil actions because there is no All-Powerful Creator to make an objective, moral law.

Karma is the moral law. The Sanskrit karma means “action”, it is paired with phala, “result”. Actions have results. Your actions now and in the past will have results now and in the future.Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

• Dhammapada 1:1-2

The question is, since this ‘karma’ is not an infinitely powerful force and it is not All-Knowing, there is a limit to it’s effect, buddists might “beat” karma in certain circumstances and avoid the natural consequences until they die a natural death.

Karma may, or may not, be “infinitely powerful”, it is “powerful enough”. Karma may, or may not, be “All-Knowing”, it is “knowing enough”. Is gravity “infinitely powerful”? Is gravity “All-Knowing”? You are approaching this in the wrong way, you are starting from an Abrahamic position and taking out God; that does indeed result in nonsense. Buddhism does not start from the Abrahamic position. Think of karma as more like gravity and ask your questions of gravity. That will probably get you closer to the answer. As the Dhammapada says, the consequences of your actions are unavoidable, “suffering will follow you”, “happiness will follow you.” You cannot escape the consequences of your actions by dying, Buddhism believes in reincarnation so all unresolved karma is carried over into your next life.

So a buddist might be ingenius enough to figuire out how to brutally rape, torture, and kill his wife and three young daughters and collect the insurance money from their deaths and you wouldn’t say that the buddists did anything objectively evil?

Killing is wrong, it is the first of the five moral rules. Anyone who does that will unavoidably reap some extremely unpleasant consequences either later in this life or in some future life. Actions have consequences.

Since you say there is no All-Powerful Creator God, then does it follow that people do not have any inalienable Rights or correspnding responsibilities?

All rights are in practice alienable by a sufficiently powerful government or similar entity. Do people have an inalienable right to vote? How was it then that women were generally unable to vote before the twentieth century? What differentiates an “inalienable right” from an “alienable right”. Should all prisoners be given their liberty because liberty is an “inalienable right”? Please define what you mean here.

Since this force is not infallible, what happens when it gets it wrong and makes innocent people suffer,

Again, look at gravity. Is gravity infallible? Does gravity ever ‘get it wrong’? Karma does not make mistakes any more than gravity does. It is us who make mistakes by failing to take karma (or gravity) into account when we act.

or in the case of Jesus Christ, who never sinned, why should he have died as he did?

Please think this through a little more. There is no sin in Buddhism. Jesus never sinned. Adam never sinned. You have never sinned. I have never sinned. Nobody has ever sinned because there is no sin. You need to leave behind your Abrahamic assumptions when thinking about Buddhism.

Jesus was probably a Bodhisattva so either His suffering was the result of karma from His previous lives, as with the Buddha’s disciple Maudgalyayana, or is was an upaya, a skillful means to teach those around Him.

All he did was good, he never wronged anyone, if his reward is in heaven, how does a finite, not all-powerful force give infinite reward?

Karma does not give infinite rewards, or punishments. All the Buddhist heavens and hells are temporary, though some are very long lasting. Nirvana is infinite, but is not attained by karma alone. Karma can prevent you attaining nirvana but in order to get there other techniques, such as meditation, are used. Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood are only three sections of the Eightfold Path.

rossum