Bad media Karma?

The WaPo has done a great job of assembling fake christians like Susie who use religion as a wrapper for liberalism. Another toady to the leftists, like Welton.

If the Christian God is all powerful, and continues to interact with His creation, then earthquakes, congenital diseases, etc. are either willed by Him or allowed by Him. Is this any less reprehensible than they being the consequences of one's past actions? If God has a direct hand in the unfolding of His creation, then everything that occurs is His persaonl, concious doing. In the case of Karma, bad leading to bad is a universal process. However, the judgment of Christianity's personal, conscious God is unpredictable and capricious (see the Book of Job). The principle of Karma states bad acts, logically, will lead to bad outcomes, while the Christian God does as he wills, except for not being able to force us to believe in Him as He gave us free will. Bad people being visited by bad, is logical, consistent and universal. Bad people being rewarded and good people being punished, depending on the variable will of a personal God, is not. Christianity has long been plagued by the controversy over whether one can gain salvation through merit, i.e., earn it by being good, or does God bestow His saving Grace on whom he chooses, regardless of their behavior and character. A Christian is not on solid ground criticizing the principle of Karma as being inequitable.

Hume opened this can of worms. By criticizing Buddhism, he opened himself and his belief system up to criticism. Unless he believes that he is justified in bashing other's belief systems, but his should be immune from criticism, which would be indicative of egoism and sociopathic behavior, he has to extend this right to others, i.e., since he bashed Buddhism, he should recognize that others may validly do the same to Christianity. This is an example of the working of Karma. How does he stop this? He ends this bad karma by applying the "Golden Rule," or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This principle was also taught by the Buddha as well as Christ. Given that Alexander entered India about 100 years after the time of the Buddha and about 300 years before the time of Christ, opening (or at least increasing) commerce and communications between India and the West, is this just a coincidence?

In this world, the Buddhist believes, nothing happens to you that you do not deserve. This is not simple; the accumulated good and bad deeds of previous lives add to your Karma.

Ah, so people born with congenital diseases, or who are killed by earthquakes or tsunamis or hunger or cancer in their first year, deserve what they get, even though they're too young to have committed any horrible crimes, don't remember what they might have done in past lives, and may even be too young to understand the concept of responsibility?

There is a media bias. It is driven by the need for sound-bites and ratings (which are in turn generated by a short attention span and the need to create controversy). Fallen heroes like Tiger Woods generate sizable ratings and if there is any fault in what Sarah Palin or Brit Hume said, it is not for the religious ideals they hold but for providing the media with the sound bites it used to create even more controversy.

Bashing Christianity has become big business. It creates ratings and revenue for the broadcast networks, most of which are headquartered in areas where liberal and atheist views are the strongest. Atheists consider bashing to be no different than any other spectator sport on ESPN and Christians tune in to try and understand who said what and why there is so much fuss. Ratings are ratings no matter which side tunes in.

So how does any religion that takes a stand fare against the almighty dollar? In today's America, not too well. This is our true karma.

God help us all.

He shouldn't have said that Bhuddism was insufficient to deal with Tiger's problems. He should have been more informed.

"Atheists are the defacto MSM favorites."

As a Christian, I certainly don't concur. Where's the Atheist Channel on TV? Where's the WaPo "On Lack of Faith" blog? The reality belies your accusation.

There are plenty of progressive Christians out here who disagree with fundamentalist theology and tactics. Hume talks a pious line (when he's not belittling those with whom he disagrees), but where are his good works? Will he be one of those who cries "Lord, Lord!" and the creator says "Begone, I don't know you"?

Even George Washington would be skewered by the media if he said the things he said now. Atheists are the defacto MSM favorites. Hume or Palin do not force anyone to follow their religious beliefs, but are lambasted by the liberals (aka MSM) for expressing non-offensive remarks concerning religion.
Just like the author of this piece. "Reap what you sow" BS.
Ragging on these two people, Palin and Hume, because their conservative views (not their christian views) don't fit the author's agenda of liberalism.

Since he is a Christian, what if he had used the good advise that Christainity offers instead of putting down Bhuddism?

"Reap what you sow", "Do unto others..."

Everyone is hyper-sensitive to comments about religion and non-religion these days. You won't get sympathy if you say, "My beliefs offer the best road and is right".

Christians should live by the best advise in their religion, one of which is humility.