Interesting post/username contrast.
It seems that the bastard gods are the ones we remember, not the Thoths and the Beses.
I imagine the bastards are more fun to write about, as well.
Not really. It was kind of taken as read that Ganesh isn’t a human, and the “head chopped off in battle” part is something I’ve never heard. The common legend/myth/story/whatever you want to call it is the one I posted.
That’s the thing with Hinduism, though- it’s so fluid. You can come up with just about any interpretation or analysis of just about any story or aspect of a god or behavior (human or divine)… and somewhere there’s a sect that not only agrees with you, but holds up your analysis as the height of revealed truth.
And yet (as far as I know, happy for ignorance to be fought on this) Hindu on Hindu theological violence seems to be virtually non-existent. The various sects/schools just pretty much say “we’re all heading for the same goal, whatever works for you” and get on with it rather than burning each other alive because they disagree on what their god’s favourite colour is.
Yes, but Hindu-on-Muslim/Sikh (and probably Jains, Parsees, Christians and Jews, too) violence is certainly not unknown. IMHO, given that a central tenet of Hinduism is that all religions are reflections of the same basic truth, that means Hindus are just as bad as everyone else, and possibly worse.
To be fair I think the Muslims kind of started it with the Hindus by over-running India and attempting to force Islam on everyone, although I don’t think they tried to actually outlaw the religion. I’d be annoyed if that happened too. I know there are Jewish communities in India and that they have lived there pretty much unmolested since they settled (certainly compared to what Jews in Christian Europe have had to put up with).
But no, I know Hindus aren’t exactly offering to hug every other religion that is different to theirs.
Hinduism was effectively outlawed at times. The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (Alamgir) levied a tax on nonbelievers (in Islam), which at the time was effectively a tax on Hindus; various Mughal rulers also severely restricted public and even private practice of Hindu rituals and such.
That said, there was never any sort of large-scale “ethnic cleansing” or the like. Although the Mughals emperors were big on conquering, they weren’t particularly big on butchering the inhabitants of their conquered territories.
The Jewish communities in India were treated relatively well, for the most part, but I think that has more to do with their visibility than anything. The Jewish diaspora in India are almost all around the coasts, in towns and cities which have other sizeable minority populations, for one thing. Many of the coastal cities in India have Christian populations too, since they were the most often-conquered areas (first by the Portuguese, then by the British). In any case, Jews never controlled the banking industry or anything, since there’s no prohibition on usury in Hinduism. Thus, they never attained the boogeyman status that European rulers often ascribed to them.
Anyway, whatever Muslims did to Hindus 1,000 years ago is not really a very good excuse for modern sectarian violence. It’s not like there’s an “occupied holy place” like Jerusalem or anything; a mosque built over Ayodhya, the legendary birthplace of Rama, was torn down by a Hindu mob in 1992 or so, but it’s not like Ayodhya is the spiritual center of Hinduism or anything (there isn’t one, really).
We’ve already got one of those. 
Indeed no. In fact I can’t think of anything that’s a good excuse for modern sectarian violence, but certainly not if the sects involved are religion-based: it’s all just different flavours of fantasy, after all.
Oh, IMHO.
No way. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are the same thing, three in one. In other words, Jesus is the same dude that as the OT God ordered atrocities that would make even Hitler’s hair curl.
Not all Christians are trinitarians.
Like licking chocolate from Mary Magdalene’s feet…
Yeah, but he had a stepdad, so wouldn’t that make him legit after the fact?
monavis, to be fair, it’s not like he had anything to give away, then. He WAS homeless, I think. (I don’t know-do they ever mention Jesus having his own bachelor’s pad?)
I am curious as to why the “possibly worse”, is it because of the idea of a group that is intolerant of other sects/variants of its self? Because that is not something special/unique to Hinduism, so what makes it worse for Hindus to be against another group?
Oh my goodness. Is this really a pit of the Greek gods? I love it!
Yeah, this is related to the popular-among-certain-woo-woo-groups theory that before the Indo-Europeans came, everything was matriarchal. There’s absolutely no historical evidence for this, nor that Hera was involved at all.
Written down, yes; standardized, no. Homer was respected everywhere and was fairly firm in form, but all of the ancient writers did their own things with myth. There are a million variants of just about every story.
I make a post saying I can’t think of a story where the big three harm an innocent human, and you respond with the story of Ganesh. Why are you responding to my post about humans with a post about a god being killed? I don’t dispute that the gods in Hindu mythology behave all sorts of ways with each other, but then I never made that claim to begin with.
No, it’s not. Your version leaves out details of the common version of this story. Ganesh was killed at the end of a raging battle outside Parvati’s palace.
Fine. But, again, I originally posted about the big three harming humans. And I specifically limited my original post in this thread. Why other people want to drag me off into tangents that I never claimed is beyond me.
Here’s a cite about Ganesha
Now, I’ve heard variations from one-on-one combat to a full-fledge melee involving all of Shiva’s hordes, Vishnu and the Devas against an army created by Parvati (and in some versions along with Durga and Kali fighting on the Ganesha’s side).
He was a carpenter and in those days carpenters were not poor. If he could heal the blind and lame and get Peter to get money from a fish when he needed it for taxes, than he could have had all the money he wanted. If he had no money how could or should he have to pay taxes?