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

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by Lagrimas

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Lagrimas

 

It's a fact that I'm not worried about other people's beliefs. If I was, I probably wouldn't have criticized 3/4 of the world by denouncing the 3 major religions. I just dismissed over a billion people's beliefs, and yet you say I'm worried about other people's beliefs?

You dismissed their belief, lol, who are you to do that?

we are ALL gods, means they are too, means their beliefs are as important as yours.

yes by denouncing others faiths im sorry you are clearly showing yourself to be worried about what other people think, and not in a good way, if you dont understand this, you are way of course. the laughter at the end of your post is a mystery to me.

it seems to me you are a child of ego.. is this what budhism does to people? not good.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Lagrimas because: (no reason given)

No this is not what Buddhism does to people, he is NOT a Buddhist. I believe his intentions are to both feed his egoic need to argue and to create ignorance surrounding the topic of Buddhism.

Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic. I am aware of budhisms virtues and do believe that its point (as a philosophy and belief system) is to make people less like the OP and not to train them in to being #'s

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

The story goes, he was poisoned, but he wished to reach paranirvana sooner than he was fated to do so, and leave his body a bit before his time (he was still 80), so he ate the poison pork willingly. It also doesn't make sense why he would eat pork in the first place if he was supposedly a vegan. The story is basically he did this willingly in order to reach the final state of nirvana (you also have to realize that death is not the end for Buddhists since the Buddha had at least 3 documented lifetimes before the one where he reaches enlightenment).

He ate the pork because he ate what ever was giving to him. And if he was intentionally poisoned then why did the man who gave him the pork immediately go beg for his forgiveness for giving the Buddha his left-over pork when he had fresh pork which he saved for himself? Why did this man sit by the Buddha's side until his death and become a monk, a follower of the Dharma, if he intentionally poisoned him?

None of that makes any sense. Please stop misguiding people.

reply to post by babybunnies


Some Christians really do seek truth and salvation, as well as Muslims, so not all Muslims are wrong, but the religion does play heavily into Middle Eastern governments. A Christian or Muslim is just someone who hasn't discovered Buddhism yet.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


My guess is because he felt guilty for feeding him poisoned pork.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The biblical revelations are obtuse and open to interpretation, kinda like the rapture that didn't happen, and all the other raptures that were supposed to happen but don't. Buddhism is very clear on suffering being caused by impermanence and desire.

Obtuse and open to interpretation? Right.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

"All" and "no man", you're right that's tremendously fuzzy, so hard to understand!!!!! now that you mention it, I have NO IDEA why we Christians say there will be a world-wide monetary system!!!!

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Wait, just noticed this too, over "ALL kindreds, and tongues, and nations..". How could be possibly think when it said "all nations" it meant ALL NATIONS??!!!??!!!??

Wow, we surely have to go back to the drawing board, that was so ridiculously obtuse!! And wide open to interpretation!!!!

This has to do with the one world government because three of the major religions is about serving a system that is inherently linked to government, whereas Buddhism is not linked to any type of government.

Christianity has nothing to do with government. Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

Daniel warned about the end times one-world "beast" empire, and John gave the exact same warning.

2,000 years ago.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Lagrimas

 

No, all opinions are not the same. Some people may have opinions that a heavy rock falls faster than a light rock. Should I respect their opinion because they are "gods" as you say? No, they are not gods. The only way to achieve divinity is through truth, not through lies.

Im leaving this thread now, im bored of your arguments.
My last point is that truth is truth and opinion opinion. In faith there is no truth but that of the beholders.
Science and faith stand apart, because of this.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So which mark is it you are referring to on the forehead? (Other than ash Wednesday is all I can think of). So it's safe to say that people don't have marks on their forehead, so it's safe to say revelations was wrong. (they also don't have anything on their right hand).

"Christianity has nothing to do with government," how many Christians are in seats of U.S. Government these days?


How about this: if the world ends, I apologize to you in heaven from my lowly place in hell. But, will you apologize to me if the world doesn't end in...whenever the revelations so clearly puts it

reply to post by Lagrimas


goodbye. Come back whenever you feel like having an argument about the truth.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

Bring any argument to the floor if you like, I'd prefer if you brought facts to the table rather than personal insults.

All things are impermanent and attachment to these things cause suffering. This is undeniable fact. Try and argue around it if you like.

edit on 1-6-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

I am not here not feed your egoic need to argue about things, only to clarify for others a few main points so they do not grow hostile towards Buddhism, which you are obviously trying to provoke.

1. You are not a Buddhist, and you do not speak for them when you say Buddhism is the only religion that does not seek a NWO.
2. Buddhism does not promote "crusading", spreading falsities, or arguing for no good reason, as you are doing.

That is it, that is all. I will now leave this thread for you to wallow in your egoic desires.

Peace friend.

reply to post by filosophia


lol i have a mark on my forhead like harry potter. maybe they forgot to give you yours?
Not in the club.. shame for you.
I really am leaving now lmao..

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


interesting how you keep bringing up the ego thing. This brings up the main problem with Buddhism, in that it is as one Buddhist writer called, a "successful failure of a religion". Buddhists, modern day that is, take the first half of Buddhism too seriously: anatta, and they lose sight of the blissful, true, everlasting Self of the Buddha. This is why whenever someone starts to talk about actual Buddhism, they are first called an Eternalist, and then they are called egotistical.

reply to post by filosophia


:A Christian or Muslim is just someone who hasn't discovered Buddhism yet. "


lol and what if a christian or muslim said the opposite abotu a buddist ?

circular argument?


christians musliims buddists are all on there own paths of bs dictated by scripture

reason and logic get suspended and faith takes over ...


why would we even have reason and logic if we were meant to follow blindly ? i could never understand that .....

reply to post by seedofchucky


all that matters is content, not form. If a Christian said all Buddhists are serial killers it really wouldn't affect the true Dharma.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So which mark is it you are referring to on the forehead? (Other than ash Wednesday is all I can think of). So it's safe to say that people don't have marks on their forehead, so it's safe to say revelations was wrong. (they also don't have anything on their right hand).

The "chip" right now is supposed to go into the forehead right under the hairline or between the thumb and index finger of the hand.

"Christianity has nothing to do with government," how many Christians are in seats of U.S. Government these days?

Irrelevant. There are heterosexuals in the US Government right now, does that mean that heterosexualism is the purpose for government?

How about this: if the world ends, I apologize to you in heaven from my lowly place in hell. But, will you apologize to me if the world doesn't end in...whenever the revelations so clearly puts it

Are you joking? Revelation never says the world will end. Do you even understand what you are arguing against?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So, shouldn't the bible have said in 2000 years, the government will implant a microchip into your brain? Where in the bible is the word "microchip" used?

You say revelations never says anything about the world ending, yet you say

Daniel warned about the end times one-world "beast" empire, and John gave the exact same warning.

So the "end times" is not really the end, the beginning of the "beast empire"? So in other words, the end doesn't mean the end. Can you now see why revelations is vague? Shouldn't it be called the "beginning times" since it represents the beginning of a new empire?

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, shouldn't the bible have said in 2000 years, the government will implant a microchip into your brain? Where in the bible is the word "microchip" used?

I'm fairly certain "microchip" wasn't a word 2,000 years ago. It was coined in the 20th century.

So the "end times" is not really the end, the beginning of the "beast empire"?

The Greek term is "Aeon", meaning "age". There will certainly be an end to this present age, but neither Daniel nor revelation speaks about the world ending.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, shouldn't the bible have said in 2000 years, the government will implant a microchip into your brain? Where in the bible is the word "microchip" used?

I'm fairly certain "microchip" wasn't a word 2,000 years ago. It was coined in the 20th century.

But this is divine revelation, why couldn't God predict this and use proper terminology?

reply to post by filosophia


your content is hearsay just like the other religions


buddism is no differnt . Right now there at the kiss ass stage because of the small political power they have . Give them more power and the ugly side of it will come out kinda like the dalai back in the day ...


Just hog wash mixed in with the passion for "truth" sadly it doesnt have the truth only dillusions from a starved sucidial psychopath


he knew the porn was poisoned but ate it anyway because he felt bad ?

lol?

If he was suicidel there are plenty of other ways to go ...

ask jesus

reply to post by NOTurTypical


"The "chip" right now is supposed to go into the forehead right under the hairline or between the thumb and index finger of the hand"


Are you kidding me sir?

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, shouldn't the bible have said in 2000 years, the government will implant a microchip into your brain? Where in the bible is the word "microchip" used?

I'm fairly certain "microchip" wasn't a word 2,000 years ago. It was coined in the 20th century.

But this is divine revelation, why couldn't God predict this and use proper terminology?

"Proper terminology" for whom??

Do you really think a "microchip" is called a "microchip" in all languages?