Other cites? I said:
Admit it, you just skimmed…
How do you know they don’t live in his religion?
I can’t believe I missed that. 
Anywho, I’m still not certain if it is a significant indication or not - certainly reads like one, but I dunno how it reads in Hebrew.
There is no doubt in my mind that parts at least of the OT are very ancient, and relate legends and mythology that is older than the religion in its redacted form.
I agree. I would add that parts at least of the OT are very ancient, and relate legends and mythology that is older than the religion in its redacted form.
Rub it in much?
Ya see, St. Peter fucked over Jesus, Jesus fucked over Moses, Moses fucked over Zarathustra… and that is yhe origin and mythology of your God and Devil.
Now if that’s a fact… tell me… am I lying? 'Cause you… you’re part… eggplant
Ah, sorry then. It appears I misunderstood you. I thought when you replied to my comments asking about Hinduism by stating
that you were making a broad and sweeping generalization about the religion- by stating that you meant most Hindus worshiped many gods, demons, and spirits.
Apparently, what you ACTUALLY meant was that you were ONLY speaking about the smaller sects that DO agree with your generalizations about “Hinduism” and not the other major branches that do not agree with your generalizations. My Bad, Bro.
Please next time, do point out which sects you are referring to, so that I don’t make the same mistakes of assuming that you’re talking about the same thing that I am. I’ll try to keep this in mind for future discussions with you so that I don’t get so confused next time when I try to make sense of your broad strokes.
You are truly a Dong Qichang among us Dopers, and I submit humbly to your mastery.
Have a nice day.
Could someone please grab Autolycus by the scruff of his neck and shove his nose into his post til he learns his lesson? Thanx.
You remind me of that guy Fez on that sitcom about the stoner kids…
Why the hell would you take such offense at my comment? A simple “I think you are wrong” with a cite would suffice. I still think my understanding is correct that Hinduism consists of several sects and groups that believe many things. There are Hindus that are apparently monotheistic but in this tard fight you need to provide a cite that the monotheistic Hindu beliefs date back beyond 8000BCE. Not that I will cry if you do, I will merely admit I was wrong about a minor point that really was not the crux of my position anyway…Is suggesting, even wrongly, that Hinduism is polytheistic really that offensive?
My only question to Cecil through official channels was about this very subject (I was given the standard cordial auto-return and referal to these minion boards). I don’t even remeber the exact nature of the question it was so long ago, something about the Yzidi and tangentially Zoroastrianism.
I admit that I am still fairly ignorant of the subject, but interested.
This is a bit more respectable. I do apologize for my tone earlier, but I felt slighted at how you dismissed the link I had already provided simply by pointing out “oh, there are many forms of Hinduism”.
My issue was with the “single deity as opposed to many gods demons and spirits.” And not the time line portion of your comment. The link I had provided pointed out that many of the major Hinduism sects are not Polytheistic, and don’t just believe in “gods demons and spirits” as you had said earlier. It’s been something I’ve seen quite a bit, and I was simply trying to help fight some of your ignorance on the matter. So I may have responded a bit harshly to your dismissing of my cite, but only because I felt you did not take the time to fight your ignorance on the matter.
As for the whole time period issue, I do not really care about the time line portion, and I’m willing to understand that Zoroastrianism was an older religion, but I didn’t not appreciate your broad comments that Hinduism was polytheistic. As this isn’t the case. So since I wasn’t sure if you meant Modern Hinduism, Vedic Hinduism, or whichever sect, I just responded to you with a Cite to prove your comment wasn’t quite so true. If you realized that Hinduism isn’t just polytheistic, but were actually just speaking about the earliest forms of Hinduism, I will point out it wasn’t very clear, and then I retract my comments. But it did not come across very well at all from your comments, and I took it to mean you were simply talking about Hinduism as a whole as being polytheistic.
As for proving that Hindu beliefs date beyond 8000BCE- that would be difficult to do, considering that the majority of Hindu texts came about in the 2000-1000 BCE Time period. I can point out the major sects of Hinduism and their monotheistic beliefs as arising within those time periods from around 1500BCE onwards, but you can do the same too just by following the initial link I provided you with, and it’s a nitpicky detail that both of us can see will really ultimately solve probably nothing. A “tard fight” as you put it.
And to answer your final reply- it’s not offensive, it just gets a little bit old. I usually respond to comments like that the same way I initially did to yours. I just point out it’s not true, and then I provide the link above. That’s usually it, end of story, ignorance fought. Your comments that followed afterwards though, felt snide and dismissive, and I did overreact to that. So I do apoligize for that. But I was simply trying to clear up a misconception that you had presented, and I did not expect the dismissive hand waving by you to point out “there are more than one forms of Hinduism.” As… that’s exactly what I had pointed out in my initial link.
So if you really want the cites on Monotheism, I can provide them, but you can just do that yourself too in the links- just read around. We’re not all Polytheistic backwards people, ya know?
Anyways, have a nice day still.
Glad we cleared that up. But this part baffles me:
Why in the world would you equate polytheism with backward? Do you, as an apparently monotheistic Hindu feel somehow superior to polytheistic Hindus?
Bitch got no rhythm.
I’m sure that was much funnier in your head…
Because this is all I really heard in high school.
Any idea what god was doing before human imagination appeared on the scene? Is there any acknowledgement of a time before humans in any of the religious texts?
It was pretty funny out here in the real world, too.
And, dammit, I hate it when a perfectly good pitting goes off the rails and turns into an interesting discussion. Knock it off, y’all!
Certainly. In Genesis, God makes everything else before he creates humans, albeit in only six days. Though there is no telling how long a “day” was before there was a sun.
That sort of glosses over his involvement a little, don’t you think?
I’m not sure I understand. How so?