The truth about Babylon, Illuminati & Freemason

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sacgamer25

Again with the sermon. Look buddy. You ask a question, "where does the sense of right and wrong come from?" then you say that I don't know, then you give me an answer without any evidence to support it. That is an assumption and without evidence it remains an assumption. Your preaching isn't going to work. Get with the evidence. If your bible is real, start by proving the exodus, a global flood, jonah and the whale, and any other story of supernatural events. Heck prove that someone could live for 800 years (lol). But don't end there, you have to prove EVERY story if you want your statement that the bible is true to be true.

This is no sermon. Where does the sense of right and wrong comes from?

Is it devine or not?

I know it is devine, you are the one who is undecided.

originally posted by: sacgamer25

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sacgamer25

Again with the sermon. Look buddy. You ask a question, "where does the sense of right and wrong come from?" then you say that I don't know, then you give me an answer without any evidence to support it. That is an assumption and without evidence it remains an assumption. Your preaching isn't going to work. Get with the evidence. If your bible is real, start by proving the exodus, a global flood, jonah and the whale, and any other story of supernatural events. Heck prove that someone could live for 800 years (lol). But don't end there, you have to prove EVERY story if you want your statement that the bible is true to be true.

This is no sermon. Where does the sense of right and wrong comes from?

Is it devine or not?

I know it is devine, you are the one who is undecided.

You know just as much as I do, which is nothing. If you insist on substituting assumptions for unknowns, that is on you. But you still don't know the answer just like everyone else.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: sacgamer25

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sacgamer25

Again with the sermon. Look buddy. You ask a question, "where does the sense of right and wrong come from?" then you say that I don't know, then you give me an answer without any evidence to support it. That is an assumption and without evidence it remains an assumption. Your preaching isn't going to work. Get with the evidence. If your bible is real, start by proving the exodus, a global flood, jonah and the whale, and any other story of supernatural events. Heck prove that someone could live for 800 years (lol). But don't end there, you have to prove EVERY story if you want your statement that the bible is true to be true.

This is no sermon. Where does the sense of right and wrong comes from?

Is it devine or not?

I know it is devine, you are the one who is undecided.

You know just as much as I do, which is nothing. If you insist on substituting assumptions for unknowns, that is on you. But you still don't know the answer just like everyone else.

I know this is not going anywhere but I am not making any assumptions. I am believing in all the prophets, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Zoaster, Buddah, the Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib.

They all claim the origin of this sense is devine. They call it the light within, or the Holy Spirit within. And I agree with all of them, not just one.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Where is their evidence? For all you or I know, all of those people could just be ancient conmen or crazies. What separates one of those people from, say, L. Ron Hubbard inventing scientology?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sacgamer25

Where is their evidence? For all you or I know, all of those people could just be ancient conmen or crazies. What separates one of those people from, say, L. Ron Hubbard inventing scientology?

The evidence is this.

Love lives within you. No matter how lost a soul becomes one always has a sense of love. Even in extreme depression most people keep faith in a devine love.

Love is real, Love is spiritual, and that love is the Holy Spirit. This is why it never dies. You can die, but the Holy Spirit, the love within all men cannot.

Love is my only evidence for love. And no one fully understands this devine love, but it is real, and it lives within you.

The more you accept love as the devine purpose, the brighter the light, love within you will shine.

I am not a preacher trying to convert you. I am a man who believes in devine love, and that we should follow devine love.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Your evidence is another sermon... Flowery poetry doesn't help your case. It's just talking around the issues. I said evidence and you have provided none. Therefore I don't believe you. Have fun with that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sacgamer25

Your evidence is another sermon... Flowery poetry doesn't help your case. It's just talking around the issues. I said evidence and you have provided none. Therefore I don't believe you. Have fun with that.

I don't have fun with it but I do find peace from within. A peace that is available to me, regardless of external circumstances.

Buddah called this Nirvana, if you don't believe Nirvana is real and can be found by following devine law, then you can't experience Nirvana.

If you don't believe you can find heaven/Nirvana within, how can you find heaven.

a reply to: sacgamer25

You do realize that the Buddha taught nothing about a God or Gods right? He basically taught that we are our own salvation. That's in stark contrast to Abrahamic religions which teach that salvation comes from an outside source, God/Jesus.

a reply to: DogMeat

I thought that I was the only one who caught that. Noah came after Christ?

originally posted by: cry93
a reply to: DogMeat

I thought that I was the only one who caught that. Noah came after Christ?

Christ is before Noah. Christ was God's first creation. Christ is the light, as he claimed to be, the one found in Genesis before even the sun and moon.

The flesh Jesus Christ came after Noah. But the Christ was the firstborn of all creation.

In the NT there are verses that claim Jesus was with the Jews in the desert. Meaning Jesus was YHWH.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Hey if you got to lie to yourself to help you sleep at night, I don't care. But you aren't going to get me to do the same thing.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: sacgamer25

You do realize that the Buddha taught nothing about a God or Gods right? He basically taught that we are our own salvation. That's in stark contrast to Abrahamic religions which teach that salvation comes from an outside source, God/Jesus.

Brahma is the male/female creator in Buddhism. The light, is both an external light, and an internal light. And this light is within all men. This light is the Holy Spirit, Christ Jesus.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Don't be obtuse. You know that AD is designated for the time after Christ in the flesh as Jesus walked this earth.

a reply to: sacgamer25

You're confusing Buddhism with Hinduism, Brahma is a Hindu God.

As I said, Buddhists do not believe in a God and Buddha never spoke of one. In fact, Buddha thought talking about the beginning was pointless and fruitless whereas the creation myth is a huge part of all Abrahamic religions.

There seems to be some pretty big holes in your philosophy. Are you sure you have all these books memorized?

originally posted by: cry93
a reply to: sacgamer25

Don't be obtuse. You know that AD is designated for the time after Christ in the flesh as Jesus walked this earth.

How am I being obtuse. The illuminati and Freemasons are real. JFK and a host of other presidents made statements that back this up.

I have merely linked these groups to the Pharasees and Sadusees in the bible.

To claim Christ is YHWH is in line with the NT.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: sacgamer25

You're confusing Buddhism with Hinduism, Brahma is a Hindu God.

As I said, Buddhists do not believe in a God and Buddha never spoke of one. In fact, Buddha thought talking about the beginning was pointless and fruitless whereas the creation myth is a huge part of all Abrahamic religions.

There seems to be some pretty big holes in your philosophy. Are you sure you have all these books memorized?

Brahma is in Buddhism, and yes Buddah interestingly enough, uses that name for creator, and the light for the Holy Spirit.

Maybe Buddah learned his knowledge from the Northern Star like he claimed, and understood the Vedas.

You see they go together like a puzzle, they do not contradict each other.

And yes I have most of the texts memorized in my own way, and that is how I can put the puzzle together.

reluctant-messenger.com...

Buddah used the term many times, the same word for the creator found in the Vedas, I don't believe this is coincidental.

a reply to: sacgamer25

From Wikipedia:

The name Brahmā originates in Vedic tradition, in which Brahmā appears as the creator of the universe. By contrast, early Buddhist texts describe several different Brahmās coexisting in the same universe; some of them think they are "all powerful" creators of the world, but they are corrected by the Buddha. The myths, characters, and functions of these Brahmās are distinct from those of the Vedic Brahmā. However, at least one of the Buddhist Brahmās is identified as being the object of worship of pre-Buddhist brahmins. The Buddha described the Vedic Brahmā as a misunderstanding, or mistaken remembrance, of one or more of the Buddhist Brahmās, as explained in the Brahmajāla-sutta (Digha Nikaya 1).

There is no identity between the Buddhist Brahmās and the Hindu conception of brahman as an all-encompassing divine force.

I've highlighted the more important parts.

So apparently Buddha did contradict the Vedas by calling its god a mistaken identity. Buddha's brahmas are not all-powerful like the Hindu Brahma.

Buddha didn't teach about a God who is all powerful and rules over the universe as the Vedas and Bible/Qur'an teach.

Why would Buddha say that speaking of how the universe was created is pointless when his spiritual ancestors (in your opinion Hebrews/Christians/Muslims) made it one of their biggest selling points and one of the most important parts of their story? And why would Buddha teach that salvation comes from ourselves when Jesus is supposed to be our salvation according to Christianity?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Buddah taught that the How was unimportant. And for the spiritual minded the How has absolutely no value.

Buddha didn't want the mind focused on the How anything works. But instead he wanted us to consider WHY.

The scientific mind falls in love with the How. Through science we can explain most of the How. But when the How becomes the Why man is lost.

Plato, who was a genius scientists, held the exact same view on this. He realized he spent his whole life figuring out How the body works. In the end he realized that pursuing the How actually stood in his way of considering the Why.

True philosophy tries to find the Why first. Why did God create us? After understanding the Why for oneself, the philosopher sets out to teach others the Why according to the way they understand.

So you are correct, Buddah was not concerned with the How, and thought it best to forget about the How when looking to the Light for Why.

Although the How still finds room in my mind, it is the principles of the Why that I live my life by.

Personally I have no interest in how others have interpreted the texts, except for comparison.

I know how to read and understand metaphors. And I don't believe that Plato, The Vedas, Buddah and Moses use the same names and metaphors by accident.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
The illuminati and Freemasons are real. JFK and a host of other presidents made statements that back this up.

What were Kennedy's comments regarding Masons and the Illuminati?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: sacgamer25
The illuminati and Freemasons are real. JFK and a host of other presidents made statements that back this up.

What were Kennedy's comments regarding Masons and the Illuminati?

He doesn't mention them by name. What other secret societies do you believe he was talking about? We know these societies exist and thier is ample evidence that at the highest levels they are absolutely corrupted.

Does this mean every mason is corrupt?

No, But the ones who are recognized as Massons by the Illuminati are corrupt.