"Nathan asks you to watch this video" Response

     Since the beginning of time, there have always been two principles whose effects guide human ethics and actions. These principles are good and evil. It is often said that doing good things are what constitutes a "good person", while doing evil makes one a "bad person". The Cosmic Humanist doctrine of karma, however, takes this idea to an extreme level, applying the balance of good and evil all the way down to one's actions. In fact, as the video states, the word "karma" means, "action". David Noebel defines karma as "[t]he total effect of  a person's actions and conduct during each phase of existence, determining the person's destiny" (Noebel 153). Essentially, karma's main idea is, as the old saying goes, "what goes around comes around". While this ethical standpoint may at first seem morally balanced (and therefore appealing), deeper analysis shows it to be Man's flimsy, relativistic attempt at defining ethics apart from a God of solid, reliable absolutes.

     Karma's biggest problem is that it cannot even be seen as a possibility for a universal kind of morality, as it derives from moral relativism--"[t]he belief that morals are relative to the individual and the situation" (Noebel 140). Shirley MacLaine further defines karma in the following manner: "'Whatever action one takes will ultimately return to that person--good and bad--maybe not in this life embodiment, but sometime in the future. And no one is exempt.... For every act, for every indifference, for every misuse of life, we are finally held accountable. And it is up to us to understand what those accounts might be'" (Noebel 153). David Noebel refutes MacLaine's argument by explaining that, "'...because there is no standard by which to judge what may be 'an act of indifference,' or 'a misuse of life', we cannot know if there is any difference between them, or, for that matter, if there is any difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. This is an alarming conclusion, but one Cosmic Humanists accept" (Noebel 153). In other words, karma mutilates the concepts of good and evil by uniting them as one concept in the overall scheme of reincarnation, et cetera, in the Universe. Another example of this vile unity is shown by David Spangler's belief that "Christ is the same force as Lucifer....Lucifer prepares man for the experience of Christhood....Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness as we move in to the New Age" (153). 

     Karma, then, not only makes morality unknowable, but destroys any meaning behind morality's influence on history. It takes away our ability to appreciate the efforts of the Apostles, to feel disgusted by the Holocaust, and to feel sympathy for the downtrodden in the present and future--all because what we used to know as absolutely "good" and "evil" are supposed to be one. Instead of helping to establish any reasonable moral boundaries, karma tears down the universal sense of right and wrong found in the consciences of people around the world. 

     The ambiguous, relativistic view of ethics found in New Age (such as Nathan's) morality is that what is "good" or "bad" is always in jeopardy of being changed in the newest route to achieving ultimate "godhood" everywhere. Therefore, according to such logic, the evil one might have done in a past life may suddenly become worthy of a higher reincarnation by the time one would (theoretically) be reincarnated into a new existence. Therefore, multiple phases of existence (from accumulated karma) and its role in our ultimate destiny becomes useless, and karma becomes an invalid theory. Finally, Nathan's video and its idea of "trusting one's heart" for being "karmically appropriate" in certain actions places far too much power on the decisions of Man. Even though we are supposed to be "God", the fact that we cannot even bring ourselves to such a consciousness (hence the existence of evil, etc.) renders us incapable of passing such important ethical judgments. In closing, karma is unable to bring any kind of positive, universal moral contribution. Rather, the only kind of good with which it can serve humanity is by its universal rejection. That way, there would be one less fallacy in the world that distracts people from the real God of the Bible.