Since I just got a 3 day ban in Guild Wars, I've decided to write a response to your thread, Stihl. I was going to write a response when you wrote it, but was too preoccupied and never got around to it. The reason for my ban is because I posted the past 3 days of Islamic terrorist bombings and said 'Islam is filth. Zero tolerance is the only solution'. And yet, other players can trash talk Christians, white people, encourage pedophilia and all kinds of disturbing filth, and get away with it for years on end despite being reported countless times. Anyway, onto my post...
There are as many branches of religion as there are definitions of the very word. It's a vague, umbrella term that can mean almost anything you want it to mean. And that's the point.
One person might define religion as belief in 'God'. Hinduism has many gods but it's still considered religion. Buddhism has no god but it's still considered religion.
Another person might define 'being religious' as giving a percentage of your income to a centralised authority. When we do that with a church, it's considered religious. Yet we do the same thing with government, and it isn't considered religious.
Another person might consider religion as a moral compass that teaches us how to live in harmony. Islam is the most morally corrupt and violent of all lifestyles, yet it's considered religion. Constitutional law is amongst the most morally sound of all, yet it isn't considered religion.
Another person might say, 'He watches the news religiously!'. Others will agree, yet none of the news content refers to anything religious by their own definition.
Another person might say, 'I don't hate religion, I just don't like organised religion'. They can give you specific examples of organised religion, but can't give you a specific example of unorganised religion.
Another person might say that Atheism is the absence of religion. Yet another person might say that Atheism is a religion.
It isn't by accident that the word 'religion' is so vague and interchangable. It's like that on purpose. It's designed to be a cover word to say or think one thing and mean another. To truly understand what the word means, one needs to look at all contexts and see that which binds them all.
Earlier definitions of religion: Monastic life. Respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods. State of life bound by monastic vows. To bind fast. Place an obligation on. Bond between humans and gods. Careful. Particular system of faith. Recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power.
Monastic: Secluded and contemplative. Strictly disciplined or regimented. Self-abnegating; austere.
Discipline: Control, obedience, punish.
Regiment: Large, strict military unit.
Abnegate: To give up and relinquish rights.
Austere: Strict, severe, stern.
Stern: Hard, harsh, severe, grim, gloomy, forbidden.
Religate: To tie up and bind.
Religare: Latin equivalent to religate.
Religio: Latin for scrupulousness, conscientious exactness, piety, religious scruple, religious awe, superstition, strict religious observance, scruples, conscientiousness (of gods) sanctity, an object of worship, holy thing, holy place.
Religion is affiliated with deliberately unprovable and subjective concepts like supernatural, spiritual, ethereal, divine, sacred, devotion. Religion is projected as something subjectively percievable and objectively beautiful, perfect and of immeasurable worth, yet cannot be seen, discribed or shown in any observable and objective measure.
Religion is mind control. Religion is psychosis. Religion is the exploitation of human nature. Religion is contagious. Religion is the trap by which startving prey are baited and exploited with a closed, empty hand that contains no sustenence other than the empty threats of a fist.
When a person refers to religion on an individual basis, they use a word so vague and disconnected from meaning, that it doesn't get to the heart of what they're trying to say. The question here is what they mean by 'religion'. To that end, I'll identify, seperate and deal with each of the common definitions underneath the umbrella.
Belief in a god: Roughly 75% of people believe in at least one god of some sort. But the definition of the word god can mean something very different depending on who you ask. To some, God is a person. To some, God is a philosophical construct. To some, God is the laws of physics. To some, God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Historically, the word God comes from Pistis in Latin, meaning all good things in both a personified and non personified sense. Pistis comes from the Greek compound word, Tetragrammaton. Beyond Greek, there are only vague references in Aramaic and Hebrew, and very few of them. Those references have no translatable context given to them. They come from a time where Hebrew was a dying language. It wasn't spoken any more, and used strictly for book keeping amongst religious people. It's similar to how we use Greek symbolism and Roman numerals today. We don't speak Greek or Roman, but we use their memes to make something appear old, important, mysterious and authentic. The Hebrew word for Tetragrammaton has no vowels, because it was no longer a spoken language at the time. It's to the effect of YHWH. That's why the name of god cannot be spoken. Not because it was forbidden for some mysterious reason and caused God to smite you, but because it literally wasn't speakable. The modern concept of a personified God comes from a deliberate mistranslation of Tetragrammaton. Religious institutions do this for the purpose of creating an omnipotent God that overrules all of mankind, a God that only speaks through them and therefore giving them the ultimate, unquestionable authority of God. To question them is to question God, the ultimate crime. But as I said, it's a mistranslation. They take the Greek Tetragrammaton and translate it as 'The four letters of God's (unspeakable) name, YHWH'. They do this by saying that Tetra means four, while grammaton means grammar. The problem is that grammaton isnt even a Greek word. They create a Greek word out of nowhere, and justify its existence by forcing the pieces together and saying, 'Grammaton sounds like grammar, therefore it is'. The truth is that Tetragrammaton is three words, not two. Tetra-gramma-ton. Tetra means four. Gramma means gram, a small measure of weight. Ton means empty space or pallette. Tetra-gramma-ton means 'the four small measures of weight with the empty space'. It's a non personified reference to the four laws of physics. The Greeks invented the Tetra-gramma-ton God, because thats what they did for everything. They incorporated every new religion or belief they came across, and made a God out of it. It's a habit they picked up from other people they came across in their long history of interaction, and part of their disposition to explore new ideas. The Tetra-gramma-ton was something the Greeks picked up from a small number of Jewish Semite immigrants escaping the abuse of their peers. Those immigrants were religious librarians and record keepers who tried to preserve all kinds of historical accounts they came across, both religious and non-religious. The Tetra-gramma-ton concept was something Greeks picked up from those immigrants, and those immigrants picked up from someone else before that. The Roman empire picked it up from the Greeks, and used it to re-start their Empire after 1000 years in the dark ages.
Since we're speaking English here, I'll use the native example of the UK (United Kingdom) for a representation of just what people believe. The current population of the UK is 63 million. Of that 63 million, 35 million are represented as Christian. That accounts for 55.5% of the UK. By definition, a Christian must believe in a single, omnipotent, personified God with a capital G as defined in the King James Bible of 1611. But when people call themselves Christian, they don't neccessarily mean they're religious or even believe in a god. What they mean is that they have a native ancestor to a land that they're told is predominantly and historically Christian. They're talking about Christian values in a country that is bombarded with immigrants that have no moral compass or culture of any sort. Christian values arent even Christian in origin. The Christian religion comes from the violent, genocidal history of Semites. Semites are 12,000 year old cross breeds between the Caucasoid and Negroid races. In the dark ages, genocidal Semites brought the Caucasoid race to the edge of extinction. From a series of gobal Empires, the downfall of Caucasoids came from a series of Semitic diseases. Semites ravaged Caucasoids and stole everything from them. Caucasoids spent 1000 years in extremely poor conditions, at the edge of extinction, being raped of their history, culture, identity, technology and gene pool. Most Caucasoids in the dark ages didn't even reach full adulthood. At the end of the dark ages, Caucasoids took back what little they could find. From a large selection of violent texts that now reside in the expansive vaults of the Vatican, a small selection were chosen and rewritten by Caucasoids into something that fits more with their own values. They called it the Holy Bible, and added the 'New Testament' to clarify the context. While religious leaders repeatedly make false claims about the history and origins of the Christian bible, the truth is that it's a recent creation and still undergoing transformation. The values of the Christian bible don't come from either religion or Semites. They come from the evolutionary, imprinted values of the Caucasoid race. So when people say they're Christian, they mean Christian values. When people say they have Christian values, they mean they have values that defined a religion that makes a false claim of ownership on the very thing that created it. While they're counted as Christian, it has very little or nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with a racial/ancestral heritage and an imprinted moral compass. This can be seen by looking at the 55.5% Christian population and comparing it to a more detailed study in beliefs.
55.5% of the UK are represented as Christian. (2001 census)
38% of the UK are represented as having belief in a god. (Eurobarometer Poll 2005)
40% are represented as having belief in a spirit or life force. (Eurobarometer Poll 2005)
20% are represented as having lacking a belief in a spriit, life force of god. (Eurobarometer Poll 2005)
The numbers just don't add up, and the belief in a god significantly overlaps with immigrants that follow Christianity and other religions. What's going on here is that the word religion is being used to cover a wide variety of conflicting, vague and often polar opposite definitions. In this case of 'belief in a god', it shows that most people don't believe in a personified god. It also shows that most people believe in either no god, or god in a wide variety of non personified contexts. Below is a graph from a 2011 census, showing a decline of Christianity, an increase of Atheism, and a population majority of Atheists.
Church attendance: Church attendance is a more accurate way to show just how religious a person and population is. Below is a world map showing just that. Unfortunately, Asians have a habit of lying or hiding their embarrassing statistics, hence why they don't appear on this map. The truth is, most Asians are highly religious and predominantly Buddhist.
Religion and race: There are three human races. Caucasoid (white), Mongoloid (yellow) and Negroid (black). Everyone else is a recent cross breed between the races, going back as far as 12,000 years. The races themselves are seperated by about half a million to 2 million years. Below are world maps of different religions, showing that religion is a racial phenomenon. Christianity is a Caucasoid religion. Islam is a Semitic religion. Hinduism is an Indian religion. Buddhism is a Mongoloid religion. Comparing to the map above, you can see that Caucasoids are the least religious, while Negroids and Semites (Negroid cross breeds) are the most religious, regardless of their religion of choice. Christianity is the most contagious, while Hinduism is the least contagious.
Comparing religions: Since religion always makes a claim of superiority in terms of morality and quality of life, lets compare the maps above to the quality of life in those regions. By comparing the maps above to the maps below, you can see that Christianity and Caucasoids are by far the clear winner.
Life expectancy. From highest to lowest, dark blue, medium blue, light blue, dark green, light green, yellow, orange, red, dark red, brown, black.
GDP per capita, a representation of how well off people are.
A human rights risk map. While there is some crossover between races, cross breeds and immigration, you can clearly see that Christianity is light years ahead of the rest.
Impact of race and religion on the environment. Christian areas are green. The rest are either dying or already destroyed, especially in the case of Islam.
It's only natural that in most cases, people migrate out of the worse areas and into the best. Here's a map of the world net migration rates. The countries in blue are receiving immigrants. The countries in orange are exporting immigrants. The countries in green are importing and exporting immigrants at an even rate. The countries in grey have no data available. As you can see, all people from non-Caucasoid, non-Christian countries are moving to Caucasoid Christian countries. There are a few exceptions, but for different reasons. Those reasons involve cross breed slave trades (South America), starving refugees from Islamic war (Middle East and Africa), and Caucasoid/Christian interventions that make those countries significantly more appealing to live in (building farms in southern Africa to feed the starving Africans, political intervention in Afghanistan, oil profits in Oman and the UAE).
Origins of religion: While all religious institutions like to loudly claim that they outnumber and outdate every other religion and come from a unique source directly from God, the fact of the matter is that all religions come from the same origin. Christianity and Islam both come from the same Abrahamic source. But Islam is actually an attempt at copying Christianity. Jesus was supposed to be a Jewish Semite, yet he had white skin, red hair and blue eyes, all of which are Caucasoid traits. 700 years later, Mohammad came along. He was a psychopathic mass murderer (also a pedophile and a lot more) who heard of early Christianity and the resillience of Christians during his attacks against them. He was an imposter who tried to impersonate Jesus. He even dyed his hair red with the blood of his victims to look like Jesus, but couldn't make his skin white and his eyes blue. This is why Muslims get so agitated when you show depictions of Mohammad. They don't realise that they're following an old ritual of hiding Mohammads big secret, that he was a Jesus imposter. Mohammad couldn't read or write, so anything he copied from Christianity was very simple and told to him by others. Christianity and Islam are considered sister religions or Abrahamic religions, in a widely accepted acknowledgement of the fact that they both have the same origins. The only question is over which one is the true prophet or messiah, and which one is the imposter. Buddhism and Hinduism on the other hand are promoted as being older and from a different source. But this isn't true either. Buddhism and Hinduism are even more closely tied together than Christianity and Islam. They both started in India. Buddhism spread to China while Hinduism remained dominant in India. The Chinese openly admit that Buddha was an Indian, and yet their depiction of Buddha is that of a Chinese man.
Indian Buddha: Severely malnourished, strange helmet-like hair, humble, sad, quiet and introverted
Chinese Buddha: Severely obese, bald head, put on a pedestal, happy, outspoken and extroverted
As you can see, racial differences produce a very different interpretation of the same thing. Both the Indian and Chinese Buddha go overboard to compensate for something. The oldest depictions of Buddha describe a white man with red hair and blue eyes, just like Jesus. These are amongst the rarest traits and exclusive to the Caucasoid race. Buddha is described as having no physical flaws and having no desire to cover himself up. That rules out baldness, hair coverings, and being too fat or too skinny. Not only do the modern depictions of Buddha go overboard in conflict with the original Buddha, they go overboard in opposite extremes in exactly the same areas. The reason is because they're trying to hide the fact that Buddha wasn't one of them. He was a white man with red hair and blue eyes. This is why the Chinese Buddha shaves his head. This is why the Indian Buddha covers his head with a strange pattern that has many explanations like sea shells and snail shells. The truth they're trying to hide is that whether or not they were fictional characters or real people, Buddha and Jesus were both the same person, a white man with red hair and blue eyes.
Jesus: A white man with red hair and blue eyes as depicted in history
Buddha: A little more accurate
- Spoiler Alert!:
|Appeared around the same time as Buddha, saying the same things in the same places.||Appeared around the same time as Jesus, saying the same things in the same places.|
|JESUS: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6.31||BUDDHA: Consider others as yourself. Dhammapada 10.1|
|Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." Luke 6:29||Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6|
|Jesus: "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Matthew 25:45||Buddha: "If you do not tend to one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick." Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26.3|
|Jesus: "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52||Buddha: "Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." Digha Nikaya 1:1.8|
|Jesus: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." Mark 8:35||Buddha: "With the relinquishing of all thought and egotism, the enlightened one is liberated through not clinging." Majjhima Nikaya 72:15|
|Jesus: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20||Buddha: "Teach the dharma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely at the end. Explain with the spirit and the letter in the fashion of Brahma. In this way you will be completely fulfilled and wholly pure." Vinaya Mahavagga 1:11.1|
You can find a much longer list of parallels in google search here
. There are only two main arguments against the concept that Buddha and Jesus are the same person. The first argument is that the timeline is slightly off. But if you look deeper, you find that there is very little evidence to establish precise timelines, and the popular belief that Buddha existed slightly before Jesus is based on a great deal of assumptions and old dis-proven claims. Most of the evidence points to a great deal of overlap around the same timeline. The second argument is that the 'foundations' of Christianity and Buddhism are different, therefore they cannot come from the same source. This is again an assumption based on old dis-proven claims. As you previously read above with the two branches of Buddhism, race plays a critical role in the transformation of a religion. As I've previously shown, not only do the 'heroes' of a specific people transform into one of their own over time, traits that clearly show a difference are either removed or covered up. In the case of the foundations of both Christianity and Buddhism, the second argument relates to Buddhism having either no god or many Gods, with Christianity being overly strict on there being one God. The Christian overcompensation for one God is to transform the original source and cover up history just as the two branches of Buddhism have done. In the case of Christianity, the issue of race isn't the problem. The problem is in regards to the time when Christianity merged with government to revive the Roman Empire. It was an attempt to unite all Caucasoids under a single religion and a single superpower, and put an end to independence. The motive was to end the dark ages and take back some of their land from the Semites who had raped them of everything they had for 1000 years. The monotheistic concept of Christianity is not the foundation, but a late political transformation that became dominant 400 years ago.
Hinduism and Buddhism: As I've previously stated, Hinduism and Buddhism are more closely tied than Christianity and Islam. Hinduism started a long time ago when Caucasoids were living in India. Mongoloids discovered them after passing through the Himalayas, and referred to them as nobles. They later came back in massive waves of immigration and eventually invasions, forcing the locals to set up the racially based Caste system. The locals were worshipped as the Hindu gods of today. They were depicted in later art as blue, because of immigration and interracial cross breeding that spiralled out of control. The bluish white skin of the Aryan gods were a representation of pure-bred Caucasoid natives, to distinguish them from the lighter skinned cross breeds. They represented the original noble Caste, of which Gautama Buddha was a member of. Buddha loses his 'blue' status by renouncing it and exploring the world of mortals. In Hinduism, Buddha is a direct descended of Vishnu (the supreme being), in the same way that Jesus is a direct descended of Tetragrammaton (God). Vishnu has four arms, Tetragrammaton has four forms.
Religious doctrine: We all have different beliefs, based on different experiences, preferences and prejudices. Some of us hold onto beliefs like a teddy bear. Some of us can let them go. Some of us are gullible. Some of us are paranoid. Some of us question everything and take the time to find out for ourselves. It's only natural that we all have a different way of life and understanding it all. We're different than others on multiple levels. A personal level, a family level, a community level, a racial level and a species level. On each of those levels, some are better off than others. And this is the great taboo of today, known as political correctness. Contrary to what we're brainwashed with every day, we aren't all the same and we aren't equal, on every level. But it's OK to be different, it's OK to be lesser, it's OK to be greater. What matters is the impact you have on those around you. There are those who only give. There are those who only take. There are those who give more than they take. There are those who take more than they give. There are those who wish well upon all people. There are those who wish death upon all people. Subjugation is the driving force of religious doctrine and a reflection of the evolutionary imprinted behaviours of the native followers of the doctrine. Each of the four mainstream religions, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, started from a Caucasoid origin, and transformed into a reflection of the races that follow them. There are certain religious doctrines that are very destructive and only used to validate and legalise the violation and exploitation of others. In every religious institution, you can find examples of people in leadership roles who are exploiting their position for self gain. And that is the whole point of religion. But since religion is transformed over time more by its followers than its leaders, the doctrines have a tendency to slowly dis-empower religious institutions the older they get, and become more in line with the natural culture of the followers. So when we talk about religious issues, we're talking about cultural issues. And when we're talking about cultural issues, we're talking about racial issues. And when we're talking about racial issues, we're talking about evolutionary behaviour imprints. While we cannot reliably judge a religion by its leaders, we can judge it by its doctrine. So let's compare the doctrines of the two largest religions in the world, Christianity and Islam.