Husky,
I agree with what you said about the Monotheists, yet like a rabid mad animal you are snapping at me. What's wrong with you? I think you need to check yourself.
Are you denying the fact that as Hinduism expanded, local tribal deities were not added and equated to the primary Hindu Gods?
[quote name='Husky' date='29 July 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1280405372' post='107678']
1. Monotheism - as defined by the recognised monotheisms - is "one gawd, all *others* are false". It often even includes recognition of the existence of other Gods, but makes the particular insistence that they must not be worshipped. (And even that their followers must be persecuted/converted/killed.)
2. "Monotheistic Tendency" is the arrogant presumption that one's ideology is the Sole Truth, or the Superior Truth to be established over others/in place of others/on top of others, and that Other Ancient Religionists Badly Need To Have It and have been Waiting For It. That established True Traditions must be subordinated to the New-Found (sudden) "Truth".
It is the tendency to want to "save" people by insinuating your ideas on their free time and personal space (E.g. feminism is a perfect case in point.) Maybe other people ... actually don't give a hoot, but would like to be left alone - and will leave you free to believe whatever you want where it does not encroach on others.
Everyone has a right to be left alone. This also makes them free to discover for themselves - independently, which makes the search more honest. And where they are unsubverted, they will discover, if that's what's right for them.
3. An "incapacity to listen to other ideas" is not at all the problem. That is too easy an excuse for the monotheisms. They're not merely unable and unwilling - which implies inaction (and that's not at all a problem in itself: not for others, only for themselves). The problem is that they are particularly on the *offence*: peddling *their* ideas, convinced it is the Only Truth (when usually it is entirely untrue) and that it Must Be Universally Adopted.
The unsubverted populations of the world can manage just fine. If it were up to me, I'd declare them all Non-Contactable Peoples and have done.
Yay! Profound Inanity -
Back up your statement with a link to the post you're referring to. Else there's no point in bringing it up.
[/quote]
"Clean-shaven or whiskered - both suit Hindu men. Unlikely any could be mistaken for a woman or child for not sporting a moustache and/or beard. "
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index....e__st__320
So we can have variations in depiction then huh?
[quote name='Husky' date='29 July 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1280405372' post='107678']
But art is not what you spoke of. You wrote: "The whole idea of monotheism is a crock. Man makes God in his image, so the idea that God is of only one form is flawed. An Advanced Alien civilization will depict God in their form not like a human."
The context in which you made the statement defines the scope of it. And the context was monotheism.
So the context is monotheism and the idea of the Christians/Muslims etc that only their God is the way. They actually acknowledge the existence of other Gods, like Hindu Gods but state they are manifestations of the devil (which is different that saying that they don't exist at all).
So I am actually supporting what you are saying, but like a crazy maniac you seem hell bent on lashing out. I think you need to get some more fresh air.
"As for art though, traditional Hindu art - as an authentic representation of the Hindu Gods - does have very particular ways of depicting the Gods. They are passed down that way. The accurate presentation is considered a part of Hindoo religion. While there is leeway in somethings here, other things never change: else they are not recognised as depictions of the Gods.
Just like why construction of moorties and Kovils have certain specifications governing them."
Even from casual observation, there are significant variations in how they are depicted including muscles. In addition, many local areas have their own village deities for example not worshiped elsewhere, but over time they were equated to a primary Hindu God.
"What, what? You draw???? And I thought they said the Age of Miracles was over..."
Again, you are acting like a pathetic little worm.
"Flattery!
See? If you try really really really hard, you *can* inch a bit towards being charming after all. (But mind you don't land yourself in the hospital with your strenuous attempts.)"
You have been locked in your closet too long. Get some fresh air.
"Even more compliments. And I wasn't even trying."
You consider that a compliment? What a dirtbag loser.
"Looks like an invitation for an argument.
But why go through the motions? Let's just declare the inevitable: I win."
Pathetic little excuse for a human being. Looking to fight for absolutely no reason. I suggest you get someone to examine your mental state.
"But enough entertainment. Even though you have been desperately nagging for someone to babysit you, I have to forego the invitation: I have no experience. Really sorry, kid. But: there's no need for you to cry on either, as you're in the care of the capable professionals of IF. They will Parent you."
LOL, What a pathetic loser. You are probably a wimpy little man, a spineless coward who sits behind his computer screen and talks big. In real life you probably wear a diaper and piss your pants. Feel free to talk to me in person if you have the guts.
I agree with what you said about the Monotheists, yet like a rabid mad animal you are snapping at me. What's wrong with you? I think you need to check yourself.
Are you denying the fact that as Hinduism expanded, local tribal deities were not added and equated to the primary Hindu Gods?
[quote name='Husky' date='29 July 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1280405372' post='107678']
1. Monotheism - as defined by the recognised monotheisms - is "one gawd, all *others* are false". It often even includes recognition of the existence of other Gods, but makes the particular insistence that they must not be worshipped. (And even that their followers must be persecuted/converted/killed.)
2. "Monotheistic Tendency" is the arrogant presumption that one's ideology is the Sole Truth, or the Superior Truth to be established over others/in place of others/on top of others, and that Other Ancient Religionists Badly Need To Have It and have been Waiting For It. That established True Traditions must be subordinated to the New-Found (sudden) "Truth".
It is the tendency to want to "save" people by insinuating your ideas on their free time and personal space (E.g. feminism is a perfect case in point.) Maybe other people ... actually don't give a hoot, but would like to be left alone - and will leave you free to believe whatever you want where it does not encroach on others.
Everyone has a right to be left alone. This also makes them free to discover for themselves - independently, which makes the search more honest. And where they are unsubverted, they will discover, if that's what's right for them.
3. An "incapacity to listen to other ideas" is not at all the problem. That is too easy an excuse for the monotheisms. They're not merely unable and unwilling - which implies inaction (and that's not at all a problem in itself: not for others, only for themselves). The problem is that they are particularly on the *offence*: peddling *their* ideas, convinced it is the Only Truth (when usually it is entirely untrue) and that it Must Be Universally Adopted.
The unsubverted populations of the world can manage just fine. If it were up to me, I'd declare them all Non-Contactable Peoples and have done.
Yay! Profound Inanity -
Back up your statement with a link to the post you're referring to. Else there's no point in bringing it up.
[/quote]
"Clean-shaven or whiskered - both suit Hindu men. Unlikely any could be mistaken for a woman or child for not sporting a moustache and/or beard. "
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index....e__st__320
So we can have variations in depiction then huh?
[quote name='Husky' date='29 July 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1280405372' post='107678']
But art is not what you spoke of. You wrote: "The whole idea of monotheism is a crock. Man makes God in his image, so the idea that God is of only one form is flawed. An Advanced Alien civilization will depict God in their form not like a human."
The context in which you made the statement defines the scope of it. And the context was monotheism.
So the context is monotheism and the idea of the Christians/Muslims etc that only their God is the way. They actually acknowledge the existence of other Gods, like Hindu Gods but state they are manifestations of the devil (which is different that saying that they don't exist at all).
So I am actually supporting what you are saying, but like a crazy maniac you seem hell bent on lashing out. I think you need to get some more fresh air.
"As for art though, traditional Hindu art - as an authentic representation of the Hindu Gods - does have very particular ways of depicting the Gods. They are passed down that way. The accurate presentation is considered a part of Hindoo religion. While there is leeway in somethings here, other things never change: else they are not recognised as depictions of the Gods.
Just like why construction of moorties and Kovils have certain specifications governing them."
Even from casual observation, there are significant variations in how they are depicted including muscles. In addition, many local areas have their own village deities for example not worshiped elsewhere, but over time they were equated to a primary Hindu God.
"What, what? You draw???? And I thought they said the Age of Miracles was over..."
Again, you are acting like a pathetic little worm.
"Flattery!
See? If you try really really really hard, you *can* inch a bit towards being charming after all. (But mind you don't land yourself in the hospital with your strenuous attempts.)"
You have been locked in your closet too long. Get some fresh air.
"Even more compliments. And I wasn't even trying."
You consider that a compliment? What a dirtbag loser.
"Looks like an invitation for an argument.
But why go through the motions? Let's just declare the inevitable: I win."
Pathetic little excuse for a human being. Looking to fight for absolutely no reason. I suggest you get someone to examine your mental state.
"But enough entertainment. Even though you have been desperately nagging for someone to babysit you, I have to forego the invitation: I have no experience. Really sorry, kid. But: there's no need for you to cry on either, as you're in the care of the capable professionals of IF. They will Parent you."
LOL, What a pathetic loser. You are probably a wimpy little man, a spineless coward who sits behind his computer screen and talks big. In real life you probably wear a diaper and piss your pants. Feel free to talk to me in person if you have the guts.