Karma compared and contrasted with Grace

Excelsior

A couple of people have posted about the apparent injustice of the Christian model of salvation (soteriology) as against the Karmic system prevalent in major Eastern belief systems.

This fascinates me on two fronts. The first is the complete and abject failure of the Irish church to communicate the message of the Gospel if this idea persists amongst Irish people and the second is the complete lack of investigation or research that people must have put into Christianity before rejecting it.

I would like to argue respectfully that Christianity's view of the end is simultaneously shockingly more unjust and massively more merciful than karma. Crudely, as karma is to Buddhism, grace is to Christianity. Both worldviews are total- they offer a complete explanation of how the world is and the engine of the belief systems are karma and grace respectively.

Karma could (at least in Hinduism) be described as the total compilation of all a person's past lives and actions that result in the present condition of that person.

Grace could be described as the undeserved gift of the Creator God to anyone who will accept it to liberate them from the consequences of theirs and others' mistakes.

Now one of these systems is obviously very just. You get what you give. What goes around, comes around. Then there is another system, the Christian system, (which people in Ireland ironically seem utterly ignorant of,) which says that God dispenses gifts, not wages. You get what he gives. Everyone can get the ultimate gift utterly independent of what they put in.

In Karma, the individual bears the cost of justice and there seems to be no room for mercy (and indeed no agent to dispense it). In Grace, the agent (God) bears the cost of justice to make mercy freely available to all.

With that short comparison, do people still think it appropriate to deem Christianity's model to be "silly" "disgusting" and "immature" as we have read on these pages?

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

A couple of people have posted about the apparent injustice of the Christian model of salvation (soteriology) as against the Karmic system prevalent in major Eastern belief systems.

As a small aside, its not entirely Eastern. Asatru has the concept of wyrd, which is fairly similar to karma.

Excelsior wrote:

I would like to argue respectfully that Christianity's view of the end is simultaneously shockingly more unjust and massively more merciful than karma.

That seems a fair assessment.

Excelsior wrote:

With that short comparison, do people still think it appropriate to deem Christianity's model to be "silly" "disgusting" and "immature" as we have read on these pages?

I'm not sure I'd choose any of those words to describe it, but I do disagree with it. I believe that people should "get what the deserve". If they choose to act badly, then they should have to deal with the consequences of that choice.

The idea of a spiritual "get out of jail free" card just doesn't sit well with me.

John Doe

Excelsior wrote:

Grace could be described as the undeserved gift of the Creator God to anyone who will accept it to liberate them from the consequences of theirs and others' mistakes.

I agree that the idea is not silly or immature. I have to ask though, what is the definition of accepting the gift of the creator God? Does it include, perhaps, living a good life? And if it does, isn't that really getting what you deserve?
I don't see how someone can believe in God and thus accept his gifts without either living a good life or being massively misguided. Also, the modern position of many churches seems to be that living a good life is believing in God. I just think that Grace has as much to do with just rewards as karma does.

Excelsior

hairyheretic wrote:

If they choose to act badly, then they should have to deal with the consequences of that choice.

But what about if the consequences of bad actions can't be dealt with by humans. We all sin. No one doubts that. You might say A is not a sin and I say it is but we all agree that we do B-Z all the time and they are definitely wrong. So if B-Z had consequences out into the future that we can't make amends for. Sure, you can apologise to the person or compensate them but you can never take it back. You can never undo it. And undoing it is what would have to be done for that person (or yourself) to ever be unhurt.

So in the absence of any way for humanity to clean up its mess, God comes and cleans it up for them.

hh wrote:

The idea of a spiritual "get out of jail free" card just doesn't sit well with me.

Now that the mess has been cleaned up, it would be truly arbitrary and preposterous to say that only people who have avoided sins X-Z can come in. Sins X-Z have been dealt with as well. And the purpose of dealing with the sin was to have all these people God crafted back in relationship with him. It isn't a get out of jail free card. It is more like the merciful, sacrificial love of a father going that extra length for their children.

Maybe if I put it this way: The kids are under no impression that they should keep making these mistakes.

Which leads on to:

John Doe wrote:

what is the definition of accepting the gift of the creator God? Does it include, perhaps, living a good life? And if it does, isn't that really getting what you deserve?

Accepting this particular gift leads to appreciation. It implicitly acknolwedges the place of the One who gave it and out of that flows praise and worship. But crucially, the good life one lives post-gift is one lived out of thankfulness for that which you have already received, independent of your good works. You do not then live well to earn or keep the gift. You live well because the gift frees you to live that way.

Most of you will at least be familiar with the account of the criminals crucified alongside Jesus. In one of his last acts before death, Jesus forgave a theif dangling on a cross. Knowing full well that the thief had converted out of plain fear. That thief would never study the Bible, never attend synagogue or church and would never make amends to all those he had wronged. He simply said, "Jesus, remember me". And Jesus promised "Today you will be with me in paradise". It was another shocking reminder that grace does not depend on what we have done for God but rather what God has done for us. It is not "being good" that gets us to heaven. Jesus contradicts that in every account. All we must do is cry "Help!". God welcomes home anyone who will have him and in fact has made the first move already.

Excelsior

John Doe wrote:

Also, the modern position of many churches seems to be that living a good life is believing in God. I just think that Grace has as much to do with just rewards as karma does.

Seems to be! But have you gone to check your assumptions out?

The reward that Grace offers is concrete in the form of liberation in this life and eternal communion with our Creator in the next, which is without end. But they are directly in conflict with each other- karma values justice and grace mercy.

bmoferrall

While salvation is a free (and undeserved) gift we can choose to accept, I think it's worth mentioning the 'system' of reward that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 3.

Paul wrote:

10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

Not sure how that would work in practice. Merc instead of a micra, fancier robes, extra sweeties at dinner time :v: ?

EDIT: I should add that this scripture seems to echo the parable of talents (discrete linky)

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

But what about if the consequences of bad actions can't be dealt with by humans.

Can you give me an example of something you feel couldn't be dealt with?

Excelsior wrote:

We all sin. No one doubts that. You might say A is not a sin and I say it is but we all agree that we do B-Z all the time and they are definitely wrong.

I can agree with that.

Excelsior wrote:

So if B-Z had consequences out into the future that we can't make amends for. Sure, you can apologise to the person or compensate them but you can never take it back. You can never undo it. And undoing it is what would have to be done for that person (or yourself) to ever be unhurt.

Perhaps you cannot make ammends for a particular action, but should you not still try?

Whatever wrong actions you made, you are the one that made the decision to do them. Yours is the responsibility to deal with the consequences of that action.

If you are sorry for what you did, then you should try to make ammends for it, to whoever was wronged. It may be that you will not fully be able to, but that does not mean you shouldn't even try.

Excelsior wrote:

So in the absence of any way for humanity to clean up its mess, God comes and cleans it up for them.

If people took responsibility for their own actions, should he need to?

Excelsior wrote:

Now that the mess has been cleaned up, it would be truly arbitrary and preposterous to say that only people who have avoided sins X-Z can come in.

If you have made ammends for your actions, to the satisfaction of the one wronged, then the situation is finished, the action balanced.

Excelsior wrote:

Maybe if I put it this way: The kids are under no impression that they should keep making these mistakes.

If they're not taught that their actions are wrong though, how will they learn that they should change?

I do understand the idea of grace, and I'm not saying that its a bad one ... I just feel that karma (or wyrd in my case) is more appropriate. That may at least in part be down to my connection to Tyr though.

John Doe

Excelsior wrote:

But have you gone to check your assumptions out?

I have, in the case of Catholicism. I can't remember the exact quote but Good Pope Benny said something along those lines, i.e. that those who didn't have a direct faith in God but lived good lives nevertheless were 'on their way to the Eternal Jerusalem' or something like that. I sure hope that's true, because although I can't make myself have faith in something that doesn't make sense to me on a deep level (and believe me, I've tried. Maybe not enough, but quite a bit) I can make myself lead a good life. In fact, I want to. It's more fulfilling.
I agree with HairyHeretic that there are some problems with the idea of grace. I just think it falls slightly short of allowing humans to develop as fully as karma does.

Excelsior

hairyheretic wrote:

Can you give me an example of something you feel couldn't be dealt with?

Rwanda. 1994.
My fight with my wife yesterday afternoon in the car park.

Both have left indelible marks on the psyche of human beings. I do not intend to put them side by side in bad taste but to show you how sin exists in a cycle that cannot be halted with some kind words, sincere apologies or even costly reparations.

hh wrote:

Perhaps you cannot make ammends for a particular action, but should you not still try?

Whatever wrong actions you made, you are the one that made the decision to do them. Yours is the responsibility to deal with the consequences of that action.

You should still try. Jesus preaches to his followers on the Sermon on the Mount that they should go the extra mile against their oppressor, nevermind for their aggrieved. But Christianity is not lobbying for God to take a particular course of action. It is not asking him to free us from mistakes we cannot fix. It is the response to his intervention in the mess we were stuck in.

Grace does not leave you free to sin, but compels you in gratitude to seek forgiveness and to have mercy. It clears your slate and more, leaves you with a foundation to build from (as bmofarrell quoted above).

hh wrote:

If you are sorry for what you did, then you should try to make ammends for it, to whoever was wronged. It may be that you will not fully be able to, but that does not mean you shouldn't even try.

Definitely, I agree. Make all the ammends you can and apologise where needed. But you cannot undo what has been done.

hh wrote:

If people took responsibility for their own actions, should he need to?

You can take responsibility for the bullying you may have participated in as a teenager. You make go to great lengths to track down your victim, express your sorrow and your regret and seek forgiveness. You may pay for their counselling services so that they can be freed from the ongoing trauma of the bullying. But you cannot take that bullying back. You cannot free yourself of the knowledge that your victim cried themselves to sleep as a result of your aggression or as a result of your passive participation. What Christianity is saying is that sin has deeper effects than we can ever know.

That bullied kid grows up and has kids and the way they raise them is shaped by the defensive shield thrown up in secondary school and on the cycle continues, even after you've take responsibility.

hh wrote:

If you have made ammends for your actions, to the satisfaction of the one wronged, then the situation is finished, the action balanced.

I have given one instance where the situation is finished but the action is far from balanced. The hurt and pain lingers on, potentially through generations. And we still are dealing with the sin problem in a godless vacuum. If there is a creator God then the primary victim of our sin is him. Seeking to make amends with him is even more complex again.

hh wrote:

If they're not taught that their actions are wrong though, how will they learn that they should change?

If anything, Christianity spends too long teaching people about how their actions are wrong. Grace does not in anyway free one up to continue behaving immorally. Moral behaviour for the intention of securing something (salvation say) is of dubious moral value. Right behaviour from an appreciation of blessings poured out on you is of true, resounding value.

john doe wrote:

I can make myself lead a good life. In fact, I want to. It's more fulfilling.

You may want to, but you cannot. No one can. Unless they fudge what is good, choose to ignore what is bad and let "what I meant" sit in place of "what I did". No one is good. All of us fall short of that barrier and I say that more surely than anything I know.

I would love to see the problems that you and HH have with the concept of grace and have the aspects of Karma that encourage human development laid out in posts.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

Rwanda. 1994.
My fight with my wife yesterday afternoon in the car park.

Both have left indelible marks on the psyche of human beings. I do not intend to put them side by side in bad taste but to show you how sin exists in a cycle that cannot be halted with some kind words, sincere apologies or even costly reparations.

Rwanada is not a single act though. It was thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps millions of separate acts, each of which the ones who perpetrated them need to account for.

Your arguement with your wife is an easier one to deal with. You can apologise, explain why you got angry, and hopefully learn from the mistake so as not to repeat it. The negativity of your actions could be balanced out by your efforts.

Excelsior wrote:

You should still try. Jesus preaches to his followers on the Sermon on the Mount that they should go the extra mile against their oppressor, nevermind for their aggrieved. But Christianity is not lobbying for God to take a particular course of action. It is not asking him to free us from mistakes we cannot fix. It is the response to his intervention in the mess we were stuck in.

I think this is where we diverge. I'm not looking for anything from God here. I am the one who chose to behave badly. I am the one who must make ammends. Its my responsibility.

Excelsior wrote:

Grace does not leave you free to sin, but compels you in gratitude to seek forgiveness and to have mercy. It clears your slate and more, leaves you with a foundation to build from (as bmofarrell quoted above).

If I am to seek forgiveness, it would be from the person I wronged. Making amends for your actions is the first step there.

Excelsior wrote:

Definitely, I agree. Make all the ammends you can and apologise where needed. But you cannot undo what has been done.

No, you can't. You have to take responsibility for what you did, and its consequences.

Excelsior wrote:

You can take responsibility for the bullying you may have participated in as a teenager. You make go to great lengths to track down your victim, express your sorrow and your regret and seek forgiveness. You may pay for their counselling services so that they can be freed from the ongoing trauma of the bullying. But you cannot take that bullying back. You cannot free yourself of the knowledge that your victim cried themselves to sleep as a result of your aggression or as a result of your passive participation. What Christianity is saying is that sin has deeper effects than we can ever know.

That bullied kid grows up and has kids and the way they raise them is shaped by the defensive shield thrown up in secondary school and on the cycle continues, even after you've take responsibility.

Thats quite possible. That is why you need to recognise that any actions you take will have potentially far reaching consequences. You have to think on that before you act, and if you choose to act that way, recognise that you are responsible for what happens.

Excelsior wrote:

I have given one instance where the situation is finished but the action is far from balanced. The hurt and pain lingers on, potentially through generations. And we still are dealing with the sin problem in a godless vacuum. If there is a creator God then the primary victim of our sin is him. Seeking to make amends with him is even more complex again.

I'm afraid that I see things differently there.

Excelsior wrote:

If anything, Christianity spends too long teaching people about how their actions are wrong.

I think I can definately agree with that

Excelsior wrote:

Grace does not in anyway free one up to continue behaving immorally. Moral behaviour for the intention of securing something (salvation say) is of dubious moral value. Right behaviour from an appreciation of blessings poured out on you is of true, resounding value.

Doing the right thing because you believe it to be the right thing, or worth doing for its own sake, is indeed enough.

Excelsior wrote:

I would love to see the problems that you and HH have with the concept of grace and have the aspects of Karma that encourage human development laid out in posts.

I don't have a problem with grace as such. All I can say is that the concept of karma feels more right to me.

lostexpectation

grace seems to be associated with death and and end of life forgiveness... even excelsior talks in those terms

karma in popular terms is associated with daily right, wrongs and acts of balance

Excelsior

Karma culminates in reincarnation, grace cultimates in salvation. But as karma affects the day to day, so too does grace. They permeate all that the adherent does but they are headed towards a destination at the end of this life.

I've read that karma isn't a life-to-life thing, it's also a day-to-day thing. Sometimes it can be held off for lifetimes, sometimes it can come to fruition during the same lifetime.
It's ongoing action, rather than totting up marks at the end of your lifetime.

John Doe

Excelsior wrote:

You may want to, but you cannot. No one can. Unless they fudge what is good, choose to ignore what is bad and let "what I meant" sit in place of "what I did". No one is good. All of us fall short of that barrier and I say that more surely than anything I know.

I would love to see the problems that you and HH have with the concept of grace and have the aspects of Karma that encourage human development laid out in posts.

I disagree. I think anyone can lead a good life. The reason I hold this view is that it helps me to be happy more than believing that I can't lead a good life would. By being happy I can make others happy. Happiness is very important, in my view.
That is one of the problems I have with the concept of grace, right there. I find it depressing to think that I can never be good. Another problem is that it removes right and wrong from this life. A third problem is that it confuses the hell outta me. I know that's my failing and not 'grace's but it's a legit problem nonetheless. This is the part that confuses me: under what circumstances does grace operate? Is everyone saved due to it or just some people? And then, what people? Is it down to your faith in God or your attempts to be a good person? If it is the former I find it simply unjust, without the 'massively more merciful' part. If it is the latter, then it's kinda like karma. In a previous post you said that God makes mercy freely available to all, but yet there do seem to be some necessary 'qualifications', otherwise what's the point of anything? Finally, you said that grace permeates all that the adherent does. How?

Excelsior

John Doe wrote:

I find it depressing to think that I can never be good.

You can be good in the measure of man but you will never live a life in this Earth without leaving a lot of hurt and pain behind.

John Doe wrote:

Another problem is that it removes right and wrong from this life.

No way at all! It gives a foundation for actually being good for the sake of good, instead of for the imminent reward.

John Doe wrote:

A third problem is that it confuses the hell outta me. I know that's my failing and not 'grace's but it's a legit problem nonetheless. This is the part that confuses me: under what circumstances does grace operate? Is everyone saved due to it or just some people? And then, what people? Is it down to your faith in God or your attempts to be a good person?

Grace is the free offer of reconciliation with God made to all people. All that is required is that one accepts it. It is freely offered to every person. If you hold out your hands in faith to receive it, you have it. If not, then you makes your choices and you live by them.

John Doe wrote:

If it is the former I find it simply unjust, without the 'massively more merciful' part. If it is the latter, then it's kinda like karma. In a previous post you said that God makes mercy freely available to all, but yet there do seem to be some necessary 'qualifications', otherwise what's the point of anything?

The neccesary qualification is that you receive it. If you refuse it, then so be it.

John Doe wrote:

Finally, you said that grace permeates all that the adherent does. How?

If I am redeemed through the sacrifice of Jesus then I ought to be defined by humility, patience and tolerance towards all others.

lostexpectation

grace is "gift from god", something bestowed on the person, karma seems to be more a sort of natural law that the person responds to or perhaps emanates from them... or where does the adherence to karma suppose to come from?

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote:

grace is "gift from god", something bestowed on the person, karma seems to be more a sort of natural law that the person responds to... or where does karma suppose to come from?

Your actions.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Your actions.

At what point do you know that you have done enough good actions to return in the next life as a wealthy person with comforts or enough good karma to do so?

And who is the judge of such actions to deem quantity and quality of actions?

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

At what point do you know that you have done enough good actions to return in the next life as a wealthy person with comforts or enough good karma to do so?

It's less a question of good actions rather than actions have consequences.
Good or bad is mostly the view we push onto them.

In buddhism, the general idea is to fulfil all karma so there's nothing to have you reborn in the next life. I've heard mention of a non-ignorant karma but I have to read more on that.

And who is the judge of such actions to deem quantity and quality of actions?

There is no judge, save ourselves? I don't think I understand you.

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma1.htm

Asiaprod

Great topic and some fantastic questions and answers:)

John Doe

Excelsior wrote:

No way at all! It gives a foundation for actually being good for the sake of good, instead of for the imminent reward.

Now that you mention it, that does seem to be the case.

Excelsior wrote:

Grace is the free offer of reconciliation with God made to all people. All that is required is that one accepts it. It is freely offered to every person. If you hold out your hands in faith to receive it, you have it. If not, then you makes your choices and you live by them.The neccesary qualification is that you receive it. If you refuse it, then so be it.

How would I go about rejecting the offer of reconcilitation? Is it done in all of my actions, or is it done simply in whether I believe I'll be saved no matter how much harm I have done, or is it an end-of-life choice where God says to me "If you believe I can save you, then I can save you"?

Excelsior wrote:

If I am redeemed through the sacrifice of Jesus then I ought to be defined by humility, patience and tolerance towards all others.

That is true. One ought to be defined by these values. If someone is to be saved through Grace, can I take it that this person will be defined by these values? And if they are, isn't their salvation as much a reward for living thusly as just a free gift?
The concept seems to be a little circular at the moment: if you are going to be saved, you will lead a humble, patient and tolerant life, in which case you will be pretty much the best humankind has to offer and worthy of salvation, if anyone's going to get it.
One hole I can see in my own argument is this: if Grace operates constantly, i.e. if I am saved every moment through the sacrifice of Jesus rather than just at my death, then perhaps my (hypothetical) humble, patient and tolerant life is because of the mercy of God, and would not be possible without it. Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Excelsior

John Doe wrote:

How would I go about rejecting the offer of reconcilitation? Is it done in all of my actions, or is it done simply in whether I believe I'll be saved no matter how much harm I have done, or is it an end-of-life choice where God says to me "If you believe I can save you, then I can save you"?

Wouldn't it be great if you get an extra last final final chance when faced with His glory at the end? But nothing is said to support that.

You reject the offer by not accepting it, of course! At some point most people choose to accept the gift and that is often called "Conversion" but it isn't a simple case of touching the gift-wrapped package once and dropping it but Grace gets deep down into your life when you carry it around with you. So you are rejecting it until you choose to accept it. Once you have accepted it, you want to hold it and keep it close so that "the springs of living water" can well up from it.

John Doe wrote:

If someone is to be saved through Grace, can I take it that this person will be defined by these values? And if they are, isn't their salvation as much a reward for living thusly as just a free gift?

The Christian living fully will be made more and more the way they were meant to be but they will never be perfect. They are still people who are just as incapable of making good on their mistakes as they were when they were not Christians. For this reason, the continued failure of the Christian, that you could never understand Grace as a reward for good works.

But Grace makes a huge difference as the Christian life is walked. I know it is worth nothing in this conversation but my own life is a testimony to that. Evelyn Waugh, the great 20th Century English writer was once asked how he could claim to be a Christian when he was so screwed up. He responded: "I may be all the things you say. But believe me, were it not for my religion, I would scarcely be a human being" So Grace makes us more and more human, more and more ourselves, but its work can only be finished when we are, at death.

John Doe wrote:

The concept seems to be a little circular at the moment: if you are going to be saved, you will lead a humble, patient and tolerant life, in which case you will be pretty much the best humankind has to offer and worthy of salvation,

From your experience of actual Christians (believers as oppossed to ritual attenders of religious functions) does this describe them? I am sure it does not. Christians need Grace as much on the last day of their life as they did 10, 20 or 50 years previous when they first believed because we are always failing.

John Doe wrote:

One hole I can see in my own argument is this: if Grace operates constantly, i.e. if I am saved every moment through the sacrifice of Jesus rather than just at my death, then perhaps my (hypothetical) humble, patient and tolerant life is because of the mercy of God, and would not be possible without it. Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

That is a better description than I could have written if you left me here listening to the Beastie Boys for another hour!

One thing I do want to say to John Doe and Hairy Heretic- thanks for being such excellent discussion partners. I know you disagree with me but you show me respect, deal with my points and force me to do better at explanation. It is cool. Thanks.

John Doe

And thank you, Excelsior. You and others on this boards have really helped me understand the Christian way of life more than would have been possible otherwise. I much appreciate it, and I do love arguing!

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

One thing I do want to say to John Doe and Hairy Heretic- thanks for being such excellent discussion partners.

No worries. I've enjoyed the debating myself.

Excelsior wrote:

I know you disagree with me but you show me respect, deal with my points and force me to do better at explanation. It is cool. Thanks.

You get back what you put out ... karma at its finest

Even if I don't agree with a particular view, I am happy to discuss it. I find that at times by explaining things to people it can give you new insights that you may not previously have considered.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

It's less a question of good actions rather than actions have consequences.
Good or bad is mostly the view we push onto them.

In buddhism, the general idea is to fulfil all karma so there's nothing to have you reborn in the next life. I've heard mention of a non-ignorant karma but I have to read more on that.

There is no judge, save ourselves? I don't think I understand you.

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma1.htm

Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting read.

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

You get back what you put out ... karma at its finest

Asiaprod

Just had a mad urge to say a couple of things.

Hairyheretic wrote:

If they choose to act badly, then they should have to deal with the consequences of that choice.
Reply: Excelsior But what about if the consequences of bad actions can't be dealt with by humans.

But to a believer in the karma system, they are always deal witht; the consequences here fall back on the perpetrator in the form of Karma. There is no belief system now, or ever will be in the future, that will enable one to go back and raise from the dead someone you were responsible for killing. Please don’t mention Lazarus, he is not part of this discussion. God did not kill him.

Ecelsior wrote:

We all sin. No one doubts that. You might say A is not a sin and I say it is but we all agree that we do B-Z all the time and they are definitely wrong. So if B-Z had consequences out into the future that we can't make amends for. Sure, you can apologize to the person or compensate them but you can never take it back.

Correct, and the same applies to Christianity, you can never take it back and God comes and cleans it up. That is not an argument on my part; it is simply stating the belief of the system.

It is more like the merciful, sacrificial love of a father going that extra length for their children.

Nice turn of phrase and a very acceptable explanation to a Christian, It would have been nice if it had been explained that way when I went to school, but that was not the case. I would have had to beg grace from God. It was no present.

But crucially, the good life one lives post-gift is lived out of thankfulness for that which you have already received, independent of your good works. You do not then live well to earn or keep the gift. You live well because the gift frees you to live that way.

This for me is the most important point in this debate. This should once and for all confirm that there is absolutely no comparison and no overlap to be made between Grace and Karma. They are as different as chalk and cheese. Grace/Karma is the central core point that sets Buddhism and Christianity apart. And is the central point that will determine a person’s belief.
The Buddhist approach is 180 degrees the opposite:
The outcome of your life is highly, no totally, dependent of your good works. If you do not live well, you will suffer, now or in the future. You and you alone are responsible for you actions and there is nothing in heaven or earth that can change that.
There never will or can be any comparison made between Grace and Karma They are uniquely different, and are a matter of belief. What Christianity and Buddhism can do is borrow or reflect ethical similarities; one can never become the other.

bmoferrall

When I started taking Christianity seriously, initially in a Catholic context, I was pretty ignorant of the concept of Grace.
There followed daily mass, charity, fasting, abstinence, isolation, sacrifice, ascetism in general.
The weight of the world was on my shoulders. I painted myself into a corner, had something of a nervous breakdown, and even contemplated suicide.

Matthew 11:27-31
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.""

These words had always appealed to me greatly. I figured I was doing something wrong.

As a new creature, born again in the spirit, a Christian should become (super)naturally disposed to doing what is right according to His law. As Paul says, we become new creations.
Sin remains ever present, but it should gradually, over a lifetime, lose its stranglehold.
This is what I find in practice. Most of those issues I struggled with in the past have lost their appeal.
In any case, I don't worry about it anymore. Grace covers all sins...past, present and future.
His burden is light.

John Doe

That sounds good. I'm glad Christianity eased your burden, but a bit worried that Catholicism almost drove you mad! That's a very appealing quote alright. It's a pity that some of the Bible makes sense to me on a very deep level, and others parts of it I find abhorrent. Maybe one day I'll accept the latter parts on faith, but then again maybe not. I'm just glad I'm learning more about all of it.