Dharma Talk: My Journey from Christianity to Buddhism
-
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth (sinweiy) (yamizi):
As for Buddhism, no such thing as doing God's work, rite? Also, salvation is not thru Buddha but thru one's own karma and practicing the dhamma - rite?
depends, it's not exactly true.
This I agree with sinweiy, although I don't know what he meant exactly. The salvation in Buddhism, at least to my understanding, will be the practice of the Dhamma. Kamma is the residue seed that is stored in our deep conscious mind, it is the result of our actions, speech and thoughts. Henceforth, the practice of the Dhamma becomes the primary factor of our salvation. And that practice doesn't refer only to chanting or meditation; but the attitude and the way we live our lives are the very practice of the Dhamma itself.
The goal of Buddhism is end of suffering, leading to no rebirth, rite?
end of INNER suffering, yes. no physical rebirth is for arahats. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas still manifest "rebirth" to deliever sentient beings. As when one attained Buddhahood, one accomprise the Triple Bodies: - Truth Body(Merge with Utimate Truth), Bliss Body(True Happiness) and the Manifestation bodIES(manifest into countless bodies to help beings realised the Utimate Truth).
Suffering is a subjective perception that how a person will be habitually react to a certain situation that he/she is in. Bottomline is there is no inner or outer suffering, our minds make that distinction. If one truly benefits from the practice of the Dhamma, then one's mind who is free from suffering naturally is not bothered by the "outer" (which there isn't in the first place) suffering anymore. The ideas of Bodhisattvas and Buddhas having rebirths belong to the Mahayana. The difference in their rebirths and us, is that we rebirth due to our kamma while the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas rebirth due to their vows.
The goal of Christianity is eternal life in a place better than paradise. So, this is very attractive!
This is VERY true. Haha.
Now, you see why it is much easier to sell Christianity than Buddhism? In Christianity, you just accept and believe in a saviour. it is simple and easy. In Buddhism you have to renounce this and that, meditate, make merits and ensure good karma. That's a lot of hard work to do for oneself. If there is a saviour to do all the work, voila, so simple and easy. Somebody died for my sins - that's good for me. I am absolved, relieved of past misdeeds!
Actually I will have to say something for the christians (to all christian forummers, please correct me if I'm wrong). The thing about 'aceept Christ and you are saved', is that a born-again christian (someone whom have accepted Christ from the bottom of the heart, not necessarily a convert from non-christian faith) and I mean a genuine one, from then on will abide the teachings of Christ and be Christ-like. Be loving, gentle, etc. For the new lifestyle and attitude that the born-again christian had adapted, he is literally turning over a new leaf! That is where the forgiveness of God comes in, for in this part, God forgives the sinners and allow second chance to them. So it is not as simple as it sounds like, there's always a catch. For say someone who had baptised but still go around doing terrible things, of course the nominal christians will say God will judge not us, but I (not christian so I judge haha =P) say God will certainly give that guy a hell (literally) of a good time.
While in Buddhism, renounciation only is required for the monks and nuns. However, in such urbanised societies we are living in, I see monks and nuns getting busier after they renounced. I used to know of a nun, besides running her own vihara, she's working on some buddhist youth project, planning some environmental project and some other social welfare projects. So I think the purpose of renouncing which is suppose to give up certain secular commitments is been defeated here. However in the Mahayana spirit, we seek enlightenement in the here and now, whether laypeople or not, it doesn't matter. Renounciation becomes merely an option now. I think if a buddhist keept thinking of making merits and ensure good kamma, then he/she has fail in the practice. Because I believe when Lord Buddha taught about cultivation, He would want us to have the good deeds done for the benefit of others and ourselves, not really about wanting to plant good kamma. That would make buddhists very hypocritical if they do good deeds just to 'ensure good kamma'.
I will tell you this: it is very easy to be a Christian but not easy to be a Buddhist. A lot of Christian beliefs are just make-beliefs and a lot of naive people buy that.
That is after some churches have commercialise the christian-faith. I believe many nowadays christians are like buddhists, don't read their sacred texts. They just believe whatever the pastors (or monks for buddhists' case) tells them and without verifying them with the sacred texts of their religion.
As for 'buddhists' or 'some other faiths' embracing Christianity - let me say this: I don't think they are 'serious' Buddhists. More likely Taoists or others who are neither here nor there (in between religions) type. Anyone who is serious about a belief must begin with an open mind and explore very far.
maybe you would like to explore the Teaching of Pureland Buddhism. a teaching "Quite" similar to X'tianism. They stress on the Other-power of Amitabha, faith, vow or aspiration and practice nienfo and letting go.
My personal understanding on any pureland teachings (not only restricting to Amitabha), defies the very fundamental teachings of Buddhism. As for Amidaism (belief in Amitabha), I have heard that it is a fusion between Buddhism and a certain religion that honours fire when Buddhism was spread to that particular region. Amitabha's dharani : Om Ami Deva Shri. Ami refers to infinite light while deva refers to god/deity. Why not Om Ami Buddha Shri then? But of course, pureland belief is currently one of the most popular and practiced sects in mainstream Buddhism. However, as TGE had mentioned in the last para, one 'must being with an open mind and explore very far", hence I suggest to whoever is interested in religion, not to only look at it at face value but consider spending some time and effort and look at it deep and from other angles. Sometimes you will find interesting thing that people choose not to believe in. But always remember, what majority believes doesn't make it necessary true =) -
lol.. i didn't know its easy to be a christian.
-
Generally speaking, it is. There is even such a thing as mass conversion, mass baptism, as long as you are willing to accept that:Originally posted by dumbdumb!:lol.. i didn't know its easy to be a christian.
1) you are a sinner, no matter how much good you do
2) that Christ is your saviour.
Also, because of threats like:
1) you are already guilty (condemned) no matter what
2) if you don't accept Jesus - you will not have everlasting life
3) if you are not saved, you go to Hell
And beautiful promises like:
1) eternal life
2) sitting next to God
3) all the good things available in the Kingdom of God
And if you do God's work, you are even more desirable as children of God. -
If you replace the word God with Buddha, it applies too. Buddhism also have all the above, except the eternal life is replaced with no birth.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Generally speaking, it is. There is even such a thing as mass conversion, mass baptism, as long as you are willing to accept that:
1) you are a sinner, no matter how much good you do
2) that Christ is your saviour.
Also, because of threats like:
1) you are already guilty (condemned) no matter what
2) if you don't accept Jesus - you will not have everlasting life
3) if you are not saved, you go to Hell
And beautiful promises like:
1) eternal life
2) sitting next to God
3) all the good things available in the Kingdom of God
And if you do God's work, you are even more desirable as children of God. -
I respectfully disagree ... For a start, there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism. Also, "Hell" in Buddhism is not etermal and it is not reserved for "unbelievers" either. For that matter, a "believer" in Buddhism is not exempted from hell just by being a believer. Ultimately, a Buddhist has to work for his/ her own "salvation" with the Buddha's teachings and guidance. "Salvation" is not automatically attained just by the simple act of supplication.Originally posted by yamizi:If you replace the word God with Buddha, it applies too. Buddhism also have all the above, except the eternal life is replaced with no birth.
Even if a Buddhist is not "saved", he does not necessarily go to hell either. Despite the similarities in teachings between Buddhism and Christianity, there remains some fundamental differences in the metaphysical and ethical outlook to equate the 2 just by substituting "God" with Buddha and "eternal life" with no birth.
While I wouldn't say that being a Christian is easy (because it is not... tithing and bearing fruit for the Lord, struggle & fight etc...), I would think that it is definitely easier than being a Buddhist.
Still, I believe in Buddhism. -
I apologise for not elaborating my point, I shall share from the experience I had from both buddhist and christian "preachers":Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I respectfully disagree ... For a start, there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism. Also, "Hell" in Buddhism is not etermal and it is not reserved for "unbelievers" either. For that matter, a "believer" in Buddhism is not exempted from hell just by being a believer. Ultimately, a Buddhist has to work for his/ her own "salvation" with the Buddha's teachings and guidance. "Salvation" is not automatically attained just by the simple act of supplication.
Even if a Buddhist is not "saved", he does not necessarily go to hell either. Despite the similarities in teachings between Buddhism and Christianity, there remains some fundamental differences in the metaphysical and ethical outlook to equate the 2 just by substituting "God" with Buddha and "eternal life" with no birth.
While I wouldn't say that being a Christian is easy (because it is not... tithing and bearing fruit for the Lord, struggle & fight etc...), I would think that it is definitely easier than being a Buddhist.
Still, I believe in Buddhism.
1. It is true that there is no 'sin' per se in buddhistic concept, however, in buddhism we have kamma. And I have met many buddhists who often talk about bad kamma. They chose to perform certain deeds is due to the fear of having bad kamma. For this, I find that it has no difference from the christians' fear on sin. Because both choose to do good out of fear. Of course I won't say there are no genuine practitioners who do good not out of fear.
But pertaining to the sin and bad kamma concept, this is the same.
2. It is true that unbelievers will not automatically be subscribed to hell, however, in the buddhist concept, heaven and hell are neither eternal. We have something superiour than that, and that is nibbana. And unbelievers will not be able to attain nibbana but carry on the sufferings of birth and death in the samsara per se. As heaven is a term coined to be the supreme reward from God, the disbelief in God will not entitle one to heaven.
This point is the same too.
3. Both christianity and buddhism (or in fact other religions as well), begins their 'salvation'' with faith. The faith that one can attain salvation. But the direction for this attainment varies. For christians, probably will be believing in God and be Christ-like; while the buddhists whom believe that they have the buddha-nature, do practices like the 6 or 10 paramitas, etc.
I definitely do not equate buddhism to christianity, however, when comes onto the superficial level on the image, I still think that they are pretty the same.
But buddhism took a worse stance when starting to claim that Jesus is a bodhisattva. In a way trying to look humanistic by accepting other icon of faith (or in fact is it a dirty treat trying to degrade other icon of faith and absorbing it?), it shakens its own buddhistic faith.
I have a friend who bump into this total stranger and engage in a conversation. This stranger insisted that Jesus is a bodhisattva. Then my friend kindly asked him so it is totally alright for buddhist to convert to christianity since Jesus is a bodhisattva, then it makes no difference to either following Jesus or Guanyin. The stranger couldn't answer and rush off in a huff.
Sorry to detrack, but my main purpose in sharing is that do not judge christianity (or any other religion) just by face value. Any religion that can survive centuries till now sure have its own rich doctrinal principles.
What you are seeing in church or hearing from the evangelists are the results of the many evolutions that christianity as a organised faith has experience.
So is buddhism. -
Believing in any religion is not easy, one has to lie to oneself to accept the views presented.(i.e. a paradigm shift) So I wouldn't compare the path of one religion to another.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I respectfully disagree ... For a start, there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism. Also, "Hell" in Buddhism is not etermal and it is not reserved for "unbelievers" either. For that matter, a "believer" in Buddhism is not exempted from hell just by being a believer. Ultimately, a Buddhist has to work for his/ her own "salvation" with the Buddha's teachings and guidance. "Salvation" is not automatically attained just by the simple act of supplication.
Even if a Buddhist is not "saved", he does not necessarily go to hell either. Despite the similarities in teachings between Buddhism and Christianity, there remains some fundamental differences in the metaphysical and ethical outlook to equate the 2 just by substituting "God" with Buddha and "eternal life" with no birth.
While I wouldn't say that being a Christian is easy (because it is not... tithing and bearing fruit for the Lord, struggle & fight etc...), I would think that it is definitely easier than being a Buddhist.
Still, I believe in Buddhism. -
So you now admit that Buddhism is a religion?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:hmmm...... maybe I join triad. -
No, no, that is your proportion, not mine.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:So you now admit that Buddhism is a religion? -
You are not totally wrong if you replace God with Buddha or for that matter Allah or Whatever.Originally posted by yamizi:If you replace the word God with Buddha, it applies too. Buddhism also have all the above, except the eternal life is replaced with no birth.
Any religion is likely to display some or all of the above-mentioned. At the end of day, organised religion is what it is: getting the numbers to fill the grandness. -
Well put. I have to agree.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I respectfully disagree ... For a start, there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism. Also, "Hell" in Buddhism is not etermal and it is not reserved for "unbelievers" either. For that matter, a "believer" in Buddhism is not exempted from hell just by being a believer. Ultimately, a Buddhist has to work for his/ her own "salvation" with the Buddha's teachings and guidance. "Salvation" is not automatically attained just by the simple act of supplication.
Even if a Buddhist is not "saved", he does not necessarily go to hell either. Despite the similarities in teachings between Buddhism and Christianity, there remains some fundamental differences in the metaphysical and ethical outlook to equate the 2 just by substituting "God" with Buddha and "eternal life" with no birth.
While I wouldn't say that being a Christian is easy (because it is not... tithing and bearing fruit for the Lord, struggle & fight etc...), I would think that it is definitely easier than being a Buddhist.
Still, I believe in Buddhism. -
Equally well put. But the kamma thingy is not exactly the same though both instill some sort of fear so that human will not misbehave. The 'sinner' thingy begins by saying that human is already inherently bad regardless of thoughts and actions presently or in the past. That postulation permits the next line: the saviour. So there is condemnation yet redemption - sounds very noble and therefore very saleable. While bad kamma may be equated to sinning, redemption is different. There is no one 'son of god' who so graciously died for all humans so that they can be saved. Again, that self-sacrifice martyrdom is very palatable, noble and saleable. If you go by the 'creation' belief - that is the Creator God created everything, don't you think it makes more sense to RECREATE everything than to wait for the Second Coming to fix everything?Originally posted by yamizi:I apologise for not elaborating my point, I shall share from the experience I had from both buddhist and christian "preachers":
1. It is true that there is no 'sin' per se in buddhistic concept, however, in buddhism we have kamma. And I have met many buddhists who often talk about bad kamma. They chose to perform certain deeds is due to the fear of having bad kamma. For this, I find that it has no difference from the christians' fear on sin. Because both choose to do good out of fear. Of course I won't say there are no genuine practitioners who do good not out of fear.
But pertaining to the sin and bad kamma concept, this is the same.
2. It is true that unbelievers will not automatically be subscribed to hell, however, in the buddhist concept, heaven and hell are neither eternal. We have something superiour than that, and that is nibbana. And unbelievers will not be able to attain nibbana but carry on the sufferings of birth and death in the samsara per se. As heaven is a term coined to be the supreme reward from God, the disbelief in God will not entitle one to heaven.
This point is the same too.
3. Both christianity and buddhism (or in fact other religions as well), begins their 'salvation'' with faith. The faith that one can attain salvation. But the direction for this attainment varies. For christians, probably will be believing in God and be Christ-like; while the buddhists whom believe that they have the buddha-nature, do practices like the 6 or 10 paramitas, etc.
I definitely do not equate buddhism to christianity, however, when comes onto the superficial level on the image, I still think that they are pretty the same.
But buddhism took a worse stance when starting to claim that Jesus is a bodhisattva. In a way trying to look humanistic by accepting other icon of faith (or in fact is it a dirty treat trying to degrade other icon of faith and absorbing it?), it shakens its own buddhistic faith.
I have a friend who bump into this total stranger and engage in a conversation. This stranger insisted that Jesus is a bodhisattva. Then my friend kindly asked him so it is totally alright for buddhist to convert to christianity since Jesus is a bodhisattva, then it makes no difference to either following Jesus or Guanyin. The stranger couldn't answer and rush off in a huff.
Sorry to detrack, but my main purpose in sharing is that do not judge christianity (or any other religion) just by face value. Any religion that can survive centuries till now sure have its own rich doctrinal principles.
What you are seeing in church or hearing from the evangelists are the results of the many evolutions that christianity as a organised faith has experience.
So is buddhism.
So my understanding of kamma is the oft-quoted 'you reap what you sowed'. For the Christian salvation, it is 'you are saved by accepting the saviour'. -
The very fact that why you and me rebirth is because of the delusion we have, which with the kamma attached to our consciousness, and the whole rebirth protocol rolls --- 12 dependant originations. So while christians see that human are borned with sin; buddhists see that human are just borned with delusion and unwholesome kamma (besides that we have a buddha-nature).Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Equally well put. But the kamma thingy is not exactly the same though both instill some sort of fear so that human will not misbehave. The 'sinner' thingy begins by saying that human is already inherently bad regardless of thoughts and actions presently or in the past. That postulation permits the next line: the saviour. So there is condemnation yet redemption - sounds very noble and therefore very saleable. While bad kamma may be equated to sinning, redemption is different. There is no one 'son of god' who so graciously died for all humans so that they can be saved. Again, that self-sacrifice martyrdom is very palatable, noble and saleable. If you go by the 'creation' belief - that is the Creator God created everything, don't you think it makes more sense to RECREATE everything than to wait for the Second Coming to fix everything?
So my understanding of kamma is the oft-quoted 'you reap what you sowed'. For the Christian salvation, it is 'you are saved by accepting the saviour'.
Of course what you had comment on the creation part was true, God could have recreate everything, but then again, personally I do not believe an existence of such a God. However, from a christian's perspective (christians please correct me if I'm wrong), again God has a plan for everything and that by accepting Christ but do not be Christ-like, don't mean that one would have that redemption. The Christian-faith may begin from a faith in the saviour but I believe that is not the end.
This is the same in all religion.
"You reap what you sowed" is a verse from the Bible (ironically). However the concept of Kamma doesn't work so. Between the cause and effect, there is another factor call the condition. Without the appropriate conditions, the desired effect will not be materialised. So you may sow the seeds in the field, on the rock, on the floor and any other place. But only when all the right conditions come in to compliment that cause, or else that effect will not have happened. -
Sorry, it's not mine, just the whole world's view of things....Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:No, no, that is your proportion, not mine. -
That is true. Whether kamma or 'sinner-saviour', it can only be effective as a tool to discourage bad or wrong behaviours only if the effect is immediate. So, for kamma to work, it depends on condition. For sinners, all they need to shampoo themselves is just go to church and accept the Lord.Originally posted by yamizi:"You reap what you sowed" is a verse from the Bible (ironically). However the concept of Kamma doesn't work so. Between the cause and effect, there is another factor call the condition. Without the appropriate conditions, the desired effect will not be materialised. So you may sow the seeds in the field, on the rock, on the floor and any other place. But only when all the right conditions come in to compliment that cause, or else that effect will not have happened.
That's why I don't buy the ideology of both kamma and the saviour thingy. I much prefer this: when you violate, you get a ticket straight-away to answer within 14 days - pay up or go to jail or get rotan or get electrocuted. This is by far the best method of ensuring people behave. For kamma, if you do something bad, you may not get the effect unless certain conditions arise. For saviour ideology - you don't even go to hell for whatever bad things you do if you just get to know Jesus and call him Christ the Saviour! -
The goal of Buddhism is end of suffering, leading to no rebirth, rite?
I think maybe Bodhisattva can't really be called 'reborn', but many 'emanate' or manifest... not sure the right term.
end of INNER suffering, yes. no physical rebirth is for arahats. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas still manifest "rebirth" to deliever sentient beings. As when one attained Buddhahood, one accomprise the Triple Bodies: - Truth Body(Merge with Utimate Truth), Bliss Body(True Happiness) and the Manifestation bodIES(manifest into countless bodies to help beings realised the Utimate Truth).
Cos, a Bodhisattva does not "reborn" due to the strength of karma, but appears in Samsara due to the strength of vows. -
And also to add.. the very fundamental meaning of 'God' as 'creator of the universe' does not apply, because Buddhists do not believe in a personal Creator of man and the universe.Originally posted by yamizi:If you replace the word God with Buddha, it applies too. Buddhism also have all the above, except the eternal life is replaced with no birth. -
Yes, and apart from moral values other religions' spiritual and psychological aspects must also not be underlooked. For religions like Christianity, their practise of submission to God has large psychological and spiritual impact on their lives. So Christianity is not just a 'belief', but the teachings does help one overcome hurdles and some extent of sufferings.Originally posted by yamizi:Sorry to detrack, but my main purpose in sharing is that do not judge christianity (or any other religion) just by face value. Any religion that can survive centuries till now sure have its own rich doctrinal principles.
What you are seeing in church or hearing from the evangelists are the results of the many evolutions that christianity as a organised faith has experience.
So is buddhism.
Even our forummer Thusness who recently attended a church sermon has said that their form of 'self inquiry' (but emphasize on God) and practise submission is quite beneficial and if he had come into contact with the teachings 20 years ago and not yet been a Buddhist he wld have become a Christian.
Being a Buddhist however, we do not suscribe to their beliefs (such as Creationism, etc), but we must not (and this includes non-Buddhist free thinker, atheists or other irreligionists etc) just overlook the essence of their practise and judge them or criticise them merely on 'surface beliefs'. -
If it ain't a belief, then can you tell me where does their God exist physically in this moment?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes, and apart from moral values other religions' spiritual and psychological aspects must also not be underlooked. For religions like Christianity, their practise of submission to God has large psychological and spiritual impact on their lives. So Christianity is not just a 'belief', but the teachings does help one overcome hurdles and some extent of sufferings.
Being a Buddhist however, we do not suscribe to their beliefs, but we must (and this includes non-Buddhist free thinker, atheists or other irreligionists etc) not just overlook the essence of their practise and judge them or criticise them merely on 'surface beliefs'. -
Now I do agree that there are teachings of Christianity that are faith-based, belief-based. And I told you I do not share the same beliefs as them, such as regarding Creationism and God.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:If it ain't a belief, then can you tell me where does their God exist physically in this moment?
However we must not overlook the impact and power of surrendering/submission, their form of psychology/spirituality, etc that are also part of the teachings. In other words, the values of the teachings. -
Karma is a truth, not just a 'tool' to discourage people.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:That is true. Whether kamma or 'sinner-saviour', it can only be effective as a tool to discourage bad or wrong behaviours only if the effect is immediate. So, for kamma to work, it depends on condition. For sinners, all they need to shampoo themselves is just go to church and accept the Lord.
That's why I don't buy the ideology of both kamma and the saviour thingy. I much prefer this: when you violate, you get a ticket straight-away to answer within 14 days - pay up or go to jail or get rotan or get electrocuted. This is by far the best method of ensuring people behave. For kamma, if you do something bad, you may not get the effect unless certain conditions arise. For saviour ideology - you don't even go to hell for whatever bad things you do if you just get to know Jesus and call him Christ the Saviour!
But talking about discouragement, whether karma is immediate or not immediate doesn't matter. Eventually it will ripen when conditions are there, so Buddhists will know to avoid such evil even if there are some benefits in the short term, but in the long run, karmic effects will catch up and we will suffer.
So there is a saying by Buddha... can't remember the exact words, you can escape all around the world, you can hide everywhere, but theres one thing you can't hide from -- your own karma. -
I do not agree that their belief is important else they couldn't be living on earth now and trying to do their God's Will on earth.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Now I do agree that there are teachings of Christianity that are faith-based, belief-based. And I told you I do not share the same beliefs as them, such as regarding Creationism and God.
However we must not overlook the impact and power of surrendering/submission, their form of psychology/spirituality, etc that are also part of the teachings. In other words, the values of the teachings. -
Like I said I am not talking about beliefs and debating about their beliefs.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I do not agree that their belief is important else they couldn't be living on earth now and trying to do their God's Will on earth.
But rather the values of their own spiritual practises must not be overlooked.
You may want to look at my post and Ironside's writings in this thread: For my thoughts are not your thoughts -
TGE: this posting of yours comes close to making sense.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:That is true. Whether kamma or 'sinner-saviour', it can only be effective as a tool to discourage bad or wrong behaviours only if the effect is immediate. So, for kamma to work, it depends on condition. For sinners, all they need to shampoo themselves is just go to church and accept the Lord.
That's why I don't buy the ideology of both kamma and the saviour thingy. I much prefer this: when you violate, you get a ticket straight-away to answer within 14 days - pay up or go to jail or get rotan or get electrocuted. This is by far the best method of ensuring people behave. For kamma, if you do something bad, you may not get the effect unless certain conditions arise. For saviour ideology - you don't even go to hell for whatever bad things you do if you just get to know Jesus and call him Christ the Saviour!
But I don't believe that karma work so as it is completely random in effects and timing.
For christianity's salvation, you forgot about the accept Christ and repent portion. Without repentance, why bother to accept Christ? -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Karma is a truth, not just a 'tool' to discourage people.
Truth or otherwise is not so important. It is usefulness that matters. What's the point if it is true but useless?
But talking about discouragement, whether karma is immediate or not immediate doesn't matter. Eventually it will ripen when conditions are there, so Buddhists will know to avoid such evil even if there are some benefits in the short term, but in the long run, karmic effects will catch up and we will suffer.
If karma is cause and effect, and if effect takes a long time to come, the cause would have been forgotten. And when the effect does come, you wonder what hits you and why! Delayed effect is not effective effect!
So there is a saying by Buddha... can't remember the exact words, you can escape all around the world, you can hide everywhere, but theres one thing you can't hide from -- your own karma.
hmmm..... everyone harbours a dark past??