MrGoodBytes
Seeker for life, probably
Seeing how AV's only source for pretty much anything is and has always been himself, I'd say yes.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seeing how AV's only source for pretty much anything is and has always been himself, I'd say yes.In other words, you're saying that AV's source of information is a false prophet?
Seeing how AV's only source for pretty much anything is and has always been himself, I'd say yes.
There is having an opinion on something and then there is distorting facts and making stuff up as you go along. AV1611VET does the latter more often than the former. Do you really agree that 3000 years of hinduism can be dismissed because a nutjob who cooked up biological weapons in his backyard believed some parts of it? As several others have pointed out, it would be equally fair to judge the whole of Christianity by the actions of the Westboro Baptists.That's a bit mean. We all take in information and structure it to produce new ideas, that's part of being human and does not mean that we see ourselves as prophets. I was referring to his use of Shoko Asahara as a source, who you stated as claiming to be Jesus- ie a false prophet.
Excuse me, Thaumaturgy --- why would Shoko Asahara be a "nut"? Can you explain that?Oh I get it! Shoko Asahara was a nut who happened to try to roll in some Hindu stuff in Aum Shinrikyo, ergo you can slag all of hinduism!
Again, I have to ask why you think Asahara was a "nutjob"?Do you really agree that 3000 years of hinduism can be dismissed because a nutjob who cooked up biological weapons in his backyard believed some parts of it?
Excuse me, Thaumaturgy --- why would Shoko Asahara be a "nut"? Can you explain that?
It means "supreme truth" --- and as Bob Larson once pointed out, if you are going to worship a god of destruction in supreme truth, then people are going to die.
What "dual aspect stuff about Shiva"?You just ignored the dual aspect stuff about Shiva I posted, didn't you?
What "dual aspect stuff about Shiva"?
He is the god of destruction.
Destruction --- get it?
EX 12:23God said, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
If god cannot lie, that must mean GOD is the destroyer and is being talked about in 3rd person.For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.
Because he believed himself to be everything from a prophet to Jesus incarnate. Because he decided to kill thousands of people based on nothing but myth and paranoia.Again, I have to ask why you think Asahara was a "nutjob"?
No, it would have made him a worshipper of Shiva's benevolent, creative aspect. Thaumaturgy has already explained to you that Shiva is seen by most Hindus as an ambivalent deity with many contradictory facets. Just like Jehovah, by the way - "I make peace, and create evil", anyone?If he would have passed out flowers instead --- and helped little old ladies across the street --- while choosing Shiva as his deity of choice, that would have made him a hypocrite --- would it have not?
What "dual aspect stuff about Shiva"?
He is the god of destruction.
Destruction --- get it?
Sure do ---And your worship a deity that murdered every living thing on the planet except for a few people... do you have a point?
Sure do ---
- Christianity is founded upon the Prince of Peace.
...and creation.Hinduism is predicated upon Shiva, the god of destruction.
Don't bother AV with pesky facts....who said that he didn't come to bring peace, but the sword.
[/list]
...and creation.
Sure do ---
- Christianity is founded upon the Prince of the Destroyer.
- Hinduism is predicated upon Shiva, the god of destruction.
What "dual aspect stuff about Shiva"?
He is the god of destruction.
Destruction --- get it?
Well, when you strip away the detail and oversimplify the concept you can make anything sound bad.
Here's a bit more depth to your pitiful "gloss":
(emphasis added).In the Yajurveda two contrary sets of attributes for both malignant or terrific (Sanskrit: rudra) and benign or auspicious (Sanskrit: śiva) forms can be found.(SOURCE)
That's pretty neat. "Time" is a destroyer. Which, as you no doubt know, is kind of metaphorically true. Time wipes away all things. But the point also seems to my mind that any supreme being who can bring can take. It is the nature of a transcendent god.Another of Shiva's fearsome forms is as Kāla (Sanskrit: काल, "Time", and as Mahākāla (Sanskrit: महाकाल , "Great Time", which ultimately destroys all things
...
In contrast, the name Śaṇkara (Sanskrit शङ्कर, "Beneficent" or "Conferring Happiness" reflects his benign form. (ibid)
I find it so fascinating to see fundamentalist christians slag other relgions for whatever reason they can find and usually those reasons are predicated on a gross failure to realize that other cultures can have thoughts too!
Surely Yahweh must be the one who created Satan. Who else could?
Ya --- all you see is the word "benign" --- when Shiva clearly is the god of destruction.I find it amazing how when you ignore what other say your own points just seem so reasonable!
Of course I am ---your avoiding the obvious hypocrisy here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?