Questions

If karma is there to make us feel pain, and people use the belief in karma/god to minimize emotional pain, then that necessitates karma to cause even more chaos in the physical world in order to finally force us to feel that original pain.

Christians are the same. Belief in salvation is used to silence the heart.

You can answer even if you believe that the collective unconscious is confined in the brain as a set of DNA programmed archetypes. I think the two screenshots below prove otherwise. But it does not imply any prepackaged schools of thought, for example, does not prove any "simulation", nor any kamaloca.

The message of religion appears to be that in order to end the suffering of one part, we must sacrifice another part. That is how karma needs to be extinguished, I agree. But mainstream religion has the parts switched:

I say suffer in your heart silently and karma will cease causing you physical and mental torment.

Religion says do these actions physically, avoid negative emotions, and hope for relief after death (or somehow feel pain without a body..)

If you always focus on the explanation of how it happened or say "it's in god's hands" to avoid feeling agony, then obviously no amount of pain will resolve your karma causing it.

Jesus said that to follow him has nothing to do with symbolizing or naming his name or using forgiveness to bypass the suffering, "disregard your own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and your own life..." means be heartbroken at every single cope and distortion subconsciously committed especially by our family because we are raised to believe that our parents' flaws are not to be upset about. Most harm in the world is unintentional and still we must feel the ache, deleted from excusing, no matter how excusable.

Too few Americans know history and the number is declining with every generation. They don't know that the purpose of the US Constitution, the most copied constitution in the history of the human race, was not to tell US citizens what they can and cannot do but to tell the newly founded United States federal government what IT can and cannot do. The purpose of the document was to put strict LIMITS on the power of the federal government so that it could not tread on the rights of individual citizens to pursue their own lives in the way THEY desire not the way some government bureaucrat wants them to live.

The founders knew that there is no such thing as a big government that is also a benevolent government. They know that the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen and they tried to put as many safeguards in that document as possible to restrict the government from overstepping its bounds and involving itself in citizens' lives to a degree that exceeds the minimal necessary to maintain a civil society.

But over the years, the government has gone so far beyond the boundaries of the Constitution that those who created is would not even recognize the country today. Through influence by big government socialists and communists, who believe that government is the answer to all problems, it has taken on far more power over the people than that document ever granted them. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle but at least this administration is trying to make the structural changes that are necessary to begin down that path. Since President Trump took office, government jobs have been cut and private sector jobs have reached the highest level in US history.

Is what the founders believed still true: that the bigger the government the smaller the citizen?