|
Baby born with 2 faces, villagers worship her as a goddess. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by smakmagik
gtfo noob |
I am going to go slaughter a cow just for that. |
|
|
| smakmagik |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
I am going to go slaughter a cow just for that. |
Haha, I'm not religious in the slightest, but that was funny |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by PaulSn
Not to argue against your knowledge of anything, but when I studied Hinduism there were aproximately three Gods which were related by blood. I knew that Brahma was the main one and the other ones were sub-Gods so to speak however this goes a bit deeper. Still this doesn't change the fact, even if there are several interpretations, on a blank sheet of knowledge there would be several Gods.
And I repeat my post was about the people not the Gods. |
I don't want to sound dismissive but; you're study didn't go deep enough. You're quite right; the three names you hear/read most often are Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva; however, there are not three individuals they are parts of one god. This is a terrible parable but try to think of it more along the lines of an actor playing multiple rolls... say Eddy Murphy in "Comming to America." Eddy Murphy played the roll of Prince Akeem most of the time; however, he also played the roles of Clarence, Randy, Saul, and Sanyu. Despite appearing as different characters at different parts of the film all these characters were Eddy Murphy. The supreme entity of Brahman is much like Eddy Murphy in that it is always one entity but it appears in different forms to preform different functions at different times... except Brahman doesn't have some talentless spiritual equivalent of Arsenio Hall ridding it's coat-tails. Does this make more sense? You're not wrong... in that each of the different manifestations of the one god act independant of one another; however, but you're not entirely correct... in that although the manifestations act and appear different they are actually unified. Unity is key... all things are one in the same... creation, preservation, destruction are not seperate things they are part of a whole. |
|
|
| smakmagik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
say Eddy Murphy in "Comming to America." Eddy Murphy played the roll of Prince Akeem most of the time; however, he also played the roles of Clarence, Randy, Saul, and Sanyu. |
You're spot on with your research, but I have to LOL at that analogy
:D :D :D :D |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by smakmagik
You're spot on with your research, but I have to LOL at that analogy
:D :D :D :D |
Best I could come up with since the earlier attempt to draw an equivalent to the holy trinity fell through. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
When she turns 18.. she will be able to suck 2 dicks at the same time |
I can now understand why she's being worshipped :D |
|
|
| PaulSn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I don't want to sound dismissive but; you're study didn't go deep enough. You're quite right; the three names you hear/read most often are Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva; however, there are not three individuals they are parts of one god. This is a terrible parable but try to think of it more along the lines of an actor playing multiple rolls... say Eddy Murphy in "Comming to America." Eddy Murphy played the roll of Prince Akeem most of the time; however, he also played the roles of Clarence, Randy, Saul, and Sanyu. Despite appearing as different characters at different parts of the film all these characters were Eddy Murphy. The supreme entity of Brahman is much like Eddy Murphy in that it is always one entity but it appears in different forms to preform different functions at different times... except Brahman doesn't have some talentless spiritual equivalent of Arsenio Hall ridding it's coat-tails. Does this make more sense? You're not wrong... in that each of the different manifestations of the one god act independant of one another; however, but you're not entirely correct... in that although the manifestations act and appear different they are actually unified. Unity is key... all things are one in the same... creation, preservation, destruction are not seperate things they are part of a whole. |
I get it. |
|
|
| capo tutti di |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
When she turns 18.. she will be able to suck 2 dicks at the same time
0_o |
 |
|
|
| UmmiE |
| quote: | Originally posted by capo tutti di
|
 |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
No actually you did(in terms of the post I qouted before). Try listening to the audio version (its presented a lot different) it's much clearer then the textual page. Anyway... regardless of whether its monotheistic or henotheistic... it's certainly not pagan (with non linked gods for various things) which is what you are making it out to be. Regardless... the point is why should they automaticly be (I assume your an atheist) atheist because they have made recent scientific progress. At one point under the Mauryan empire Buddhism (which I would argue is similar to atheism in that they believe there is no divine entity) was much greater in India under them than it is now. Now unless they went backwards in technology why did India change its religion from Buddhism to Hinduism? |
|
|
| miamigo4 |
| I don't think it's about religion at all. That baby will probably die a horrible death for one, maybe two persons in that head unless there are two underdeveloped brains in the skull trying to control both of the faces and all... |
|
|
|
|
