Please note that I am not stubbornly refusing to answer your question (as your "third time" might imply) -- I am doing my best to answer you.
yes, but within the narrow confines of your wrong view you will not find an answer.
First up, I don't get to design the universe, so if what I'm describing seems to you to be exclusive and lacking in compassion, it's not my personal choice.
Neither did the Buddha, but his teachings were all about compassion and the universal nature of truth (Dharma). But then again you are not a Buddha (fully enlightened being) so it is to be expected that your theory will be full of holes, I mean because you are ignorant and lack omniscience (like me). Now if you want to rely on your self-centred ignorance in order to come up with half-cocked theories that are incapable of explaining/answering simple questions then the only thing you will do is reproduce your ignorance.
But look at it this way: all those creatures of lower sentience don't experience dukkha to begin with. In the traditional Buddhist universe, they suffer dukkha and have to work many lifetimes to overcome it. Which is the more compassionate? No dukkha for most beings, only dukkha for those who create it themselves? Or lots of dukkha for all beings, dukkha that comes at them from conditions not under their control?
First Noble Truth: Life (existence) is suffering. It has nothing to do with traditional vs secular Buddhism, it has to do with Buddhism vs nowheat's ridiculous BS.
Me too. Funny how that still doesn't put us on the same page.
Your views do not accord with the teachings of the Buddha regarding karma. Like not in the slightest.
Kamma Sutta: Action http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Alternate translation: Walshe
"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.
"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma.
"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you."
...The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Do you not believe in genetics?
Of course I believe in genetics, I am a behavioural scientist. But genetics is nowhere near enough to giving all the answers. That's why you were incapable of answering the questions I put to you.
Quite true. And your point is?
That just because you are not aware of the consequences of your actions (whether they be actions in the past that have given rise to your current situation or actions in the presence that you may not see the consequences of within this lifetime) does not mean that there are no consequences.
I mean actions that are within our control.
Actually I'm talking about the end of wholesome and unwholesome (ala MN 78).
As long as there is ignorance there will be wholesome and unwholesome actions (karma)
Yes, we do not always see the consequences. I didn't say that we see all the consequences. And I will agree that there are consequences that go beyond this lifetime -- it's just that (obviously) those consequences that go beyond this lifetime don't apply to *me* or even (to address Padma's point) what we humans tend to perceive as being "me".
Yes they do, it just won't be this "me", it'll be a continuation of your mental continuim (the same one that flows from moment to moment pushed propelled by ignorance).
Some of the consequences of my actions here and now will surely extend into the future and those effects will be felt by many -- that's actually a critical point: the concern with my actions affecting the many should be greater than concern for how my karma affects "me" in the future (especially since there ain't no "me" in the future).
Yes, well, this is where your ignorance of the workings of karma really become blaringly obvious. Let's say that out of anger nd frustration at my unwillingness to perceive your theory as relevant you decide to kill my mother (to piss me off). well you are going to reap the consequences of that action (since it is based on anger it'll probably be a rebirth in a hell realm after I have died). If I get angry with you for killing my mother and I kill you then I will reap the consequences of that action (ditto). I will not reap the consequences of you killing my mother (though your action acted as one of the causes for my reaction, my attachment to my mother is another, my lack of ability to control my temper is another, etc...), I will reap the consequences of killing you out of anger.
Craving is craving for confirmation of the existence of self, a confirmation that we look for and believe we find in our experiences; clinging is developing views (based on our experiences) that feed the sense that there is a lasting self and that the things we do to nurture and protect that "self" will lead to the good outcome we want for ourselves; becoming is the way those opinions shape our sense of self which (you didn't ask about birth but I'll carry on anyway) results in our sense of self becoming (there's that word again) a visible manifestation of our beliefs through our actions.
Hogwash, yet again. There are three doors of action (karma): mind, speech and body. Craving and clinging are karma of mind, becoming is karma of body. You have no idea what you are talking about.
And I do it all for you, because you are concerned about karma. I can also do the whole DO without it -- as I have said I can -- but I'm still talking to you about it from the perspective of karma. I am trying to learn from the Buddha's methods, because he had amazing skill at talking to people within the framework they were familiar with. I doubt I'll ever be as good at it as he was though.
No, you recourse to karma (action) and rebirth because there is no other way to explain DO. You have deluded yourself into believing that you have come up with a new explanation but you have not because you cannot (not being enlightened and all...)
You're a riot -- ever consider a career on stage?
No, I don't have the time to memorise large tracts of useless garbage (nor the mental capacity).