I'll Probably Catch Hell for this, but Screw it...Was this the First Nobody Thread?

Dude, I'm a fucking retard. I don't know anything.

:MOE:

Anyone that works against what Christ represents is an anti-christ.

The world is filled with them.

Intelligence dose not dictate faith.

Nice rampant generalization.

Yes, it is generalized in the extreme. It is the tiniest of boxes I see, that contains the thoughts of that post.

What is tha attributes of Christ?

You start somewhere.


Popularity is large box, and popularity is the herd running off the cliff.


The truth isnt always agreeable.



There are infinite errors to every mathmatical equation. But only one true solution.

Have to start somewhere Dion. Why the hell not, there.

Was Gandhi working against what Christ represents?

No.



Was ghandi religious?

Was Christ religous?

Whas budah religous?

Or was religion created because perceptions of their experiences?

Who gave them their titles, who gave them their empowerment? What attributes did all of them display?



Were they afraid to speak the truth?

Were they perverted in their deeds?




Christ he who is without sin cast the first stone. What stone did ghandi cast?

Why don't you just say what you want to say, instead of doing all this tap-dancing?

I am concluding that you are a Christian and think that the only way to God is through Jesus.

But, you are so vague, I'm not even sure if you liken your Christ to Christ Consciousness, or the religion of Christ, or what.

Against whom and towards what?

Specificity might serve directionality.

I did say what i wanted to say, it wad pretty clear. They were simple questions. I am a christian, this is true. You know that. I have never denied that.

I dont have a problem with it. I dont have a problem with you not being one. Did i ever force my beliefs on you?


This is your thread, you can resond or not to my posts, you can even delete them if you like. I have not tried to convince you otherwise.

I stated clearly everything i wanted to state, how i chose to state it. If you dont like how it is presented, you have that right. Still, i do not have to conform to your ideas of how i should conduct myself. And you dont have to conform to mine.


You are obviously upset by my posts.


Why?

What bothers you about them?


They non threatening. They are simply sentences made of words and letters, arranged in format.


You can accept them or not.



Catching hell? Or giving it?

I am not upset at your posts at all. Just trying to figure out what you are getting at, is all.

Religion was created to control masses, IMO.

The three you named were spiritual, not religious. They were seekers.

All three of them were given titles in a different manner. Christ was given his title as a push towards a singular religion. Buddha was more an archetype out of the three you bring up. Gandhi was a peace activist, an enlightened being finding strength in peace and reasoning.

What do they have in common? Humility.

As far as being 'afraid' to speak the truth. No, but some didn't know the truth as they were seeking. Buddha certainly didn't until he discovered it. And even then, it was indescribable for him.

Perverted in their deeds? Buddha wasn't except for doing it to himself. Of course, Christ and Gandhi were.

Ya Still Tryin To Find Him...

you are quickly drawing conclustions. and asserted that my thoughts came from a tiny box. small minded, narrow minded.

derogitory emotional expressions.

unless you claify otherwise.

good job at gaining compusure... not that it matters what i think. lol

when the point i was making is that, what christ represents, which is atonement, living according to the will of GOD, that all are equil in the eyes of GOD, that unjustice is wrong, etc. etc. should be embraced not scorned.

Jesus gave example, after example.

the tax collector beating on his heart with his fist, calling to GOD for love, verses the one who looks down his nose and says, thank you GOD i am not like him. etc. etc.

jesus meant to stand for the truth even if it means you are the only one, and even if it means dieing for it.

the attributes of Christ are to be emulated. and much of the world does not emulate those attributes.

there for they are anti, opposite, not aligned to those patterns.

chirst is actually a title. Jesus, did not come to serve himself. neither did Gandhi, neither did budah. they served the will of the divine, through mankind, it was to their credit by others, that they recieved their title's. ghandi was just ghandi, the mahatma came later, jesus was just jesus, the christ part came later, same with budah, he was just a prince, and a son, a friend... much like ghandi was a friend, to the british at the time, he was a pain in the ass, much like Jesus was a pain in the ass to the jews.. and jesus was a son to a mother, and a brother... etc... ordinary men, who the divine chose to do the divines work through.

Your initial post seemed to come from a small box of reasoning. That was an observation of mine because there was nothing to go on. I felt you were baiting me, and I don't like when people do that when it is easier or more pleasant to just say what you want to say.

Would you say your comment of "good job gaining composure" is not a derogatory/sarcastic remark? Well, I took it that way, so it was to me. Just as you took my 'tiny box' comment as derogatory.

Good job adhering to hypocrisy. Not that it matters what I think.

Your comments past that point, I have nothing to disagree with.

i have always been an advocate of "allowing your feelings to flow through you and do not cling to them." and looking at things in added dimension.



thank you for your clarification.

any bait can be percieved as bait, or not. any void that can be imagined, can also be imagined filled. you know that...

and well, having had experianced, to a great degree, the opposition with conviction against christanity, i understand most peoples inclination to not "like" it. but that was matters of men, not what christ taught. i became one anyway.. because i saw something differnt then what was displayed and experianced as a child.

i can make that choice. because my experiances do not define who or what i am.

0

ohhh and i did not adhere to hypocrisy.

hypocrisy difines as:

The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

my behavior reflects my beliefs and standards.

i didn't pass judgement on you, or my self, i noted percieved emotional values.

I think most people do not have opposition towards Christ's teachings, but towards the organized religion aspect of the faith. Most I am sure would agree that the virtues and guidelines that Jesus set out to teach people are beautiful and valuable in attaining spiritual growth and realization of self.

Again, it is the distortion of organized religion that most are opposed to if they have an opposition towards Christianity.

You left out the next sentence.

Hypocrisy often involves the deception of others and thus can be considered a kind of lie.[1]

When you said: you are quickly drawing conclustions. and asserted that my thoughts came from a tiny box. small minded, narrow minded.

derogitory emotional expressions.

Well, those items are purely untrue in my view. You practiced at claiming I have those moral traits, which is a lie, in my view, as I did not portray those traits, while you just did by those statements.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

~Seneca




I look at it like this...

To be 'like' Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi. Not worship them. Nor empower entities to carry out atrocity in their name.

They came to show the way... Not give others excuse for divisive division.