It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which Religion Supports a One World Government? (Buddhism does not).

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


See, I don't just have concerns with Christianity.

And by no means do i think it's the most threatening, not now anyway.


Christianity never has been "threatening".

You're thinking of "Catholicism". Christians were the ones being murdered in the millions during the Reformation and Inquisitions by the blood-stained hands of the Catholics.




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I think any religion would support one world government as long as they get to sit in the driver's seat. To claim buddhism would not do this denies the fact there have been many buddhist theocracies.

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

Global domination couldn't be be far from the mind of any theocrat.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And what scism of Christianity do you fall under?

What off-shoot of the same ancient doctrine do you adhere to?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say Protestant? - Correct my conjecture, of course.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And what scism of Christianity do you fall under?

What off-shoot of the same ancient doctrine do you adhere to?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say Protestant? - Correct my conjecture, of course.


I'm very rare, I don't adhere to any denomination of Christianity, have not in over 6 years. My Eschatological views are in the extreme minority, my view on salvation is rare, basically all I have in common with Christiandom is that Christ is God, He is the Son, He lived and died according to the scriptures, was buried, and arose bodily from the grave after 3 days according to the scriptures. I don't believe any sacrament, communion/baptism/mass are necessary for salvation.


Basically, I get into arguments not just with non-believers, but with most self-professed Christians as well.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
the answer is simple: satanism!



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You've admitted you have a view on salvation:-


I don't believe any sacrament, communion/baptism/mass are necessary for salvation.


Then what are your views on those who are unware of Jesus?

For instance, what's your take on this?



Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"


Also, would you agree that a belief in dogma, ESPECIALLY, in the Middle-East can have a profound effect on culture, and lifestyle.

For example, consider this in Theocratic ruled countries; and even small communities:-


Keep in mind that Christianity [OR ISLAM] is not just a collection of personal “beliefs,” it is also a collection of claims on which people often base their personal and professional decisions. These can be decisions that affect the life style, freedom and well being of all Americans.
Here are six very important areas of your life that can be influenced by the nonsensical claims of Christianity:

* Votes & elections are based on these claims
* Laws are based on these claims
* Medical treatments are based on these claims
* Women’s rights are based on these claims
* Views of others are based on these claims
* What children are taught about history & science is based on these claims


I'm not saying i agree with the above, but what's your take on it? Especially in countries where "GOD" rules.

I.e. It's not like America or other democratic countries where Religion is separated from state.

Don't you think religion can affect a society? I mean look at those Muslims? Still stoning people, women are not allowed in law courts - What's your take on this?
edit on 5/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Christianity never has been "threatening".

You're thinking of "Catholicism". Christians were the ones being murdered in the millions during the Reformation and Inquisitions by the blood-stained hands of the Catholics.


Funny you should mention the Reformation in the same breath. It's founder Martin Luther published an anti-semitic screed entitled "The Jews and their Lies" which Jews regard as very threatening.

Exerpts:

"I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule­­ if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe­conduct, or communion with us.... .With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

(...)

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:


First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly ­ and I myself was unaware of it ­ will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.


Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.


Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)


Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 [:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.


Fifth, I advise that safe­conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).


Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]]. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."

If you don't think that is threatening, you need help.

Now I can provide you with many more examples if I feel so inclined to but it seems appropriate to begin with the author of the Reformation, Father of Modern Protestantism whose bloody hands you wish to distinguish from the catholics.

Let me guess -- Martin Luther wasn't a "True Christian". Is that it?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



Then what are your views on those who are unware of Jesus?


I follow Jesus. What did Jesus say about that?

I can't really comment on Islam, I'm not an expert on it. But if Islam wants to control the world I have an issue with that.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What about my other questions?

What if Christianity ruled the world? That would be ok, wouldn't it? Because, according to your judgement, everyone would be ruled under the "best" or most "holy" religion? I.e. the correct religion?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What about my other questions?

What if Christianity ruled the world? That would be ok, wouldn't it? Because, according to your judgement, everyone would be ruled under the "best" or most "holy" religion? I.e. the correct religion?

If you didn't think it was the best, surely you would have chosen another religion? Or no religion at all?
edit on 5/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


The reformers did an amazing job on Christian Soteriology, but they didn't go far enough to address other errors of the Roman Catholic Church and the anti-Semitism of Luther lead a great deal towards the attitudes that helped the holocaust happen. Augustine taught "replacement Theology", that meant the Jews had forfeited their promised from God with the rejection of the Messiah and they had fallen to the church. That's heresy, God's covenants with the Jews are eternal, and many were even made with them when they were in rebellion. Paul hammers for 3 chapters (9.10.11) in Romans that God is not done with the Jews yet.

No argument from me about Luther's errors in Israeology.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What about my other questions?

What if Christianity ruled the world? That would be ok, wouldn't it? Because, according to your judgement, everyone would be ruled under the "best" or most "holy" religion? I.e. the correct religion?


Sorry, trying to be brief, I am trying to walk out the door for work.

I don't agree with any "religion", they are all evil with the Christian version being the most disgusting. Don't know why you'd ask me if a so-called "Christian" religion should rule the world when I have "Do You HATE Religion as Much As I Do" in my sig.

But simply, I do not think Christians should try to rule the world. Christ will do that someday, but he can start that Himself.

It's kinda hard to have a kingdom without a King.


edit on 5-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The "holocaust" happens because people don't like totalitarian control by a religion. Other than that, events 2000 years ago did not cause the holocaust of 1943-1945. People just think they need a moral system otherwise civilization will be doomed but it is actually more productive when there is not totalitarian control.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


Tibet is a long step away from world domination. The idea of a peaceful group of Buddhists gaining control of the world in a military sense is impossible, but they can influence the world diplomatically through ideas, but even then it is not totalitarian regimes controlling people but more like philosophical discussion.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Which Religion Supports a One World Government? (Buddhism does not).


Are you sure about that?

I invite anyone who is interested to read the following two very long but very interesting articles about the often-ignored global theocratic aspects of traditional Tibetan Buddhist theory.

1. The world ruler: The sociopolitical exercise of power by the Adi Buddha
Exerpt:


In his political function the ADI BUDDHA is a world ruler, a “universal sovereign”, a “world king” (dominus mundi), an “emperor of the universe”, a Chakravartin. The early Buddhists still drew a distinction between a Buddha and a Chakravartin. Hence we can read in the legends of Buddhism’s origins how a holy man prophesied to Shakyamuni’s father that his wife, Maya, would soon bear an enlightened one (a Buddha) or a world ruler (Chakravartin), depending upon which this son would as a young man later decide to be. Gautama chose the way of the “spiritual” Buddha and not that of the “worldly” Chakravartin, who in the customs of his time also had to act as military leader alongside his political duties.

In Mahayana Buddhism this distinction between a dominus mundi and an enlightened being increasingly disappears, yet the Chakravartin possesses exclusively peaceful characteristics. All his “conquests”, reports the scholar Vasubandhu (fourth or fifth century C.E.), are nonviolent. The potentates of the world voluntarily and unresistingly subject themselves on the basis of his receptive radiation. They bow down before him and say: “Welcome, O mighty king. Everything belongs to you, O mighty king!” (quoted by Armelin, n.d., p. 21). He is mostly incarnated as an avatar, as the reincarnation of a divine savior, who should lead humanity out of its earthly misery and into paradise....

...The “golden wheel” (chakra) is regarded as the world ruler’s coat of arms and gave him his name, which when translated from Sanskrit means “wheel turner”. Already at birth a Chakravartin bears a signum in the form of a wheel on his hand and feet as graphic proof of his sovereignty. In Buddhism the wheel symbol was originally understood to be the “teaching” (the Dharma) and the first “wheel turner” was no lesser than the Buddha himself, who set the “wheel of Dharma” in motion by distributing his truths among the people and among the other beings. Later, in Mahayana Buddhism, the golden wheel already indicated “The Great Circle of Power and Rule” (Simpson, 1991, p. 45). The Chakravartin was referred to as the “King of the Golden Wheel”. This is the title given to the “Emperor of Peace”, Ashoka (273–236 B.C.E.), after he had united India and with great success converted it to Buddhism; but is also a name which the Dalai Lama acquires when the “golden wheel” is presented to him during his enthronement.

A Buddhist world ruler grasps the “wheel of command”, symbol of his absolute force of command. In the older texts the stress is primarily on his military functions. He is the supreme commander of his superbly armed forces. As “king and politician”, the Chakravartin is a sovereign who reigns over all the states on earth. The leaders of the tribes and nations are subordinate to him. His epithet is “one who rules with his own will, even the kingdoms of other kings” (quoted by Armelin, n.d., p. 8). He is thus also known as the “king of kings”. His aegis extends not just over humanity, but likewise over Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, wrathful kings, gods, demons, nagas (snake gods), masculine and feminine deities, animals and spirits. Of his followers he demands passionate devotion to the point of ecstasy....

...Opinions differ from text to text about the spatial expansion of power of the Chakravartin. Sometimes he “only” controls our earth, sometimes — as in the Kalachakra Tantra — the entire universe with all its suns and planets. This is — as we have already shown — described in the Abhidharmakosha, the Buddhist cosmology, as a gigantic wheel with Meru the world mountain as its central axis. The circumference is formed by unscaleable chains of mountains made of pure iron, from whence the name of this cosmic model is derived — Chakravala, that is, ‘iron wheel’. The Chakravartin is thus sovereign of an “iron wheel” of astronomical proportions...

...As lawmaker, he monitors that human norms stay in keeping with the divine, i.e., Buddhocratic ones. “He is the incarnate representation of supreme and universal Law”, writes the religious studies scholar, Coomaraswamy (Coomaraswamy, 1978, p. 13, n. 14a). As a consequence, the world ruler governs likewise as “protector” of the cosmic and of the sociopolitical order....

More at source link above


2. The Foundations of Tibetan Buddhocracy
Exerpt:



...the Emperor Ashoka (who ruled between 272–236 B.C.E.)...a ruler from the Maurya dynasty, had conquered almost the entire Indian subcontinent following several terrible campaigns. He converted to Buddhism and set great store by the distribution of the religion of Shakyamuni throughout the whole country. In accordance with the teaching, he forbade animal sacrifices and propagated the idea of vegetarianism.

His state-political status is not entirely clear among the historians, then a number of contradictory documents about this are extant. In one opinion he and the whole state submitted to the rule of the sangha (the monastic community) and he let his decisions be steered by them. According to another document, he himself assumed leadership of the community and became a sangharaja (both king and supreme commander of the monastic community). The third view is the most likely — that although he converted to the Buddhist faith he retained his political autonomy and forced the monastic community to obey his will as emperor. In favor if this view is the fact that it was he who summoned a council and there forced through his “Buddhological” ideas.

Up until today the idea of the just “king of peace” has been celebrated in the figure of Ashoka, and it has been completely overlooked that he confronted the sangha with the problem of state power. The Buddhist monastic community was originally completely non-coercive. Following its connection with the state, the principle of nonviolence necessarily came into conflict with the power political requirements this brought with it. For example, the historical Buddha is said to have had such an aversion to the death penalty that he offered himself as a substitute in order to save the life of a criminal. Ashoka, however, who proclaimed an edict against the slaughter of animals, did not renounce the execution of criminals by the state.

Whether during his lifetime or first due to later interpretations — the Emperor was (at any rate after his demise) declared to be a Chakravartin (world ruler) who held the “golden wheel” of the Dharma (the teaching) in his hands. He was the first historical Bodhisattva king, that is, a Bodhisattva incarnated in the figure of a worldly ruler. In him, worldly and spiritual power were united in one person. Interestingly he established his spiritual world domination via a kind of “cosmic sacrifice”. Legend tells how the Emperor came into possession of the original Buddha relic and ordered this to be divided into 84,000 pieces and scattered throughout the entire universe. Wherever a particle of this relic landed, his dominion spread, that is, everywhere, since at that time in India 84,000 was a symbolic number for the cosmic whole. [1] This pious account of his universal sovereignty rendered him completely independent of the Buddhist sangha.

In the Mahayana Golden Shine Sutra, a few centuries after Ashoka, the coercive power of the state is affirmed and presented as a doctrine of the historical Buddha. With this the anarchic period of the Sangha was finally ended. By 200 C.E. at the latest, under the influence of Greco-Roman and Iranian ideas, the Buddhist concept of kingship had developed into its fully autocratic form which is referred to by historians as “Caesaropapism”. An example of this is provided by King Kanishka from the Kushana dynasty (2nd century C.E.) In him, the attributes of a worldly king and those of a Buddha were completely fused with one another. Even the “coming” Buddha, Maitreya, and the reigning king formed a unit. The ruler had become a savior. He was a contemporary Bodhisattva and at the same time the appearance of the coming Buddhist messiah who had descended from heaven already in this life so as to impart his message of salvation to the people. (Kanishka cultivated a religious syncretism and also used other systems to apotheosize his person and reign.)

More at source link above

edit on 5-6-2011 by Partygirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The "holocaust" happens because people don't like totalitarian control by a religion. Other than that, events 2000 years ago did not cause the holocaust of 1943-1945. People just think they need a moral system otherwise civilization will be doomed but it is actually more productive when there is not totalitarian control.


Wrong. Hitler was influenced by Luther's writings, and the pulpits in Germany were silent on Hitler's anti-Semitic rants and raves.

And the Reformation didn't happen 2,000 years before the Holocaust.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Lilitu
 


Tibet is a long step away from world domination. The idea of a peaceful group of Buddhists gaining control of the world in a military sense is impossible, but they can influence the world diplomatically through ideas, but even then it is not totalitarian regimes controlling people but more like philosophical discussion.


You didn't read the article.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Hitler was influenced by the Rothschilds. Hitler's underlings were more ruthless than Hitler, he was just a pawn. It's part of the myth that Hitler was a political genius, that's like believing George W Bush was a political genius. Regardless, the reformation did not cause the holocaust to happen. The holocaust was caused because they needed a reason for Jews to migrate to Israel to set the stage for the end times.

Man is controlling the end time revelations, not God.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



you added this after I posted my response:



If you didn't think it was the best, surely you would have chosen another religion? Or no religion at all?


Again, I'd vote "no religion at all". (See the video in my sig to learn the difference between "religion" and "redemption")

Secondly, I didn't 'choose' Jesus. He chose me (John 15:16) and faith in Him was a gift of God's grace (Romans 12:3) not on my own efforts. I thought I explained this earlier??



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


I read the title, it said Tibet. Does the article say in some manner how Tibet controls the entire world?

No, it does not, it mentions Buddhists fighting with sticks and a Dalai Lama taking over a few monasteries. There are always two sides to a religion, the true one and the one the empire uses to reach its goals. Just because evil happens in the name of Buddhists does not mean that is Buddhism. True Christianity goes against killing, thus the U.S. is not really a Christian nation. True Buddhism goes against hatred, thus the reign of any type of Buddhist empire is not really Buddhist.
edit on 5-6-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join