Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Where does Kali fit into the Trinity ?She's the Goddess of Death and Destruction, doesn't her role conflict with Shiva's ?
WEllllllllllll not really
Kali is an incarnation of Durga, who is the mother of Ganesh. But the mother of Ganesh is also known as Paravati.......... who is the consort or Shiva.
SO u can nearly say that Kali is the female version of Shiva, but what she actually is , Is Shiva's ability to destroy. SO if you took out all his destructive power, you will have Kali and a powerless Shiva.
Shiva keeps his destructive power under control while it is in him, but as Kali, there is no stopping it.
Originally posted by Thundar
Grossly innacurate at worst, and purposely misleading at best. Listed below is archeological evidence supporting the existence of the Patriarchs.1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.
2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.
3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.
4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9.
5) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town.
6) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.
None of the information that you have provided directly supports that the biblical patriarchs existed, and even if we presume that it does, it does not prove that they existed outside of historical fiction.
Originally posted by fini
WEllllllllllll not reallyKali is an incarnation of Durga, who is the mother of Ganesh. But the mother of Ganesh is also known as Paravati.......... who is the consort or Shiva.
SO u can nearly say that Kali is the female version of Shiva, but what she actually is , Is Shiva's ability to destroy. SO if you took out all his destructive power, you will have Kali and a powerless Shiva.
Shiva keeps his destructive power under control while it is in him, but as Kali, there is no stopping it.
Yes, according to Hindu Myth, Kali is a force to be reckoned with, someone who is totally undefeatable
Originally posted by PVS
new thread: superman vs kali
Beleive it or not, there was already a thread in the comic book forums called: Kali vs Galactus
This was in reference to Galactus from the Silver Surfer title, and Kali from the Spawn series....until we realized that Kali was just an avatar of the creator of Spawn's universe
Originally posted by fini
lol, my bets are on Kali, lol........... sorry superman, you're great and all....... but not this fight, lolYes she would be nearly invicible. She is the one that gives the power to Shiva to destroy worlds, galaxies, even the universe. So once she goes unchecked, she is undefeatable.
KALI WINS
FATALITY
Originally posted by Thundar
You're probably correct with the above assumption. But the ultimate deciding factor of who is a Christian, will be determined by Christ himself. He will base this decision not just by one's knowledge of scripture or their ability to strictly follow every ritualistic Christian practices, but also on the loving intentions of an individual's heart.Remember that neither the thief on the cross nor the Centurian were active participants of the Mosaic Law, while the Pharisee's, Scribes, and Saduccees were. But the former two peoples turned out to be Christians over the latter 3, because of their faith in Christ and the loving intentions of their hearts.
So basically we can't really say who is Christian and who isn't, we just have to leave it up to whatever happens after death? Fine, though from a human perspective, one of definition, all Catholics are Christian, as Christian, as a term, simply means one believes Jesus is the Christ. Which all Catholics do.
No I don't believe it to be unreasonable for people to not believe, particularly if there is no proof to support these claims. That being stated - without completely getting into geneology, I think it is quite apparent that many of these cultures share a common history with the stories presented within the bible.
I think we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if one assumes Abraham was real, that he was such a large figure, and that his influence did spread through beyond the borders of wherever he lived, it just doesn't fit in with the spread of humans or early tribes throughout the world.
Although not entirely accurate with its accounts or interpretations, the Muslim Koran incorporates much of the old testament into its doctrine. Abraham is referenced many times within it, and much like the bible, it refers to him as the father of most of mankind.
Possibly because it was really created hundreds of years after Christianity first started kicking and thousands after the Jewish religion got it together. A factor of the rise of Islam was the cultural reaction of eastern peoples towards a religion (Christianity) that was infringing. Islam unified them and gave them identity against it. The same problem remains. We are now looking at the Koran, which did some sourcing of the OT... so it is back to that single source. It is easy to claim something when it was recorded, physically, some time after the actual events it is making claims about.
Abraham is also referenced in the Hindu Artharva Veda(sp?), although in the Hindu scripture he is given the name "Brahma", and his wife Sarah is given the name "Saraswati." With all of these religious works containing such glaring similarities, its quite obvious that their is some common relation among their peoples. Even if this relationship between these peoples isn't a geneological one(although logic and common sense dictate that it probably is), it still shows that these peoples did share many cultural, historical and religious dogmas, which supports why so many of them have similar stories referring to a "savior."
Um?
Are we talking about Brahma, Hindu God from which things came and his consort, the wise goddess Saraswati?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So basically we can't really say who is Christian and who isn't, we just have to leave it up to whatever happens after death? Fine, though from a human perspective, one of definition, all Catholics are Christian, as Christian, as a term, simply means one believes Jesus is the Christ. Which all Catholics do.
Yes but it is goes beyond just the mere belief of Christ being the savior. It's also dependant upon the intentions of one's heart, and them acting upon these loving intentions. For even Satan and all of his demons know that Jesus is the Christ.
And remember, although one can't truly say who will be considered a Christian in the end, it's still important for those who have faith in Christ, to assist one another when they see each other struggling along the path, or as Jesus puts it..they should "love one another."
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if one assumes Abraham was real, that he was such a large figure, and that his influence did spread through beyond the borders of wherever he lived, it just doesn't fit in with the spread of humans or early tribes throughout the world.
I believe it does quite well, but you are indeed entitled to your opinion.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Um?Are we talking about Brahma, Hindu God from which things came and his consort, the wise goddess Saraswati?
Yup. Although the original story fell more along the lines of the Christian one, as Abraham is obviously not a God. The "Brahma" sect is still one of the largest one's of Hinduism today. And before you ask, no the original information on Abraham's Hindu roots was not quickly googled...😉
Originally posted by Darkchoco
Wtf no, we beleive we can get forgiven through Jesus Christ our Savior, not through a Porgoitory Slip or w/e Catholics call it.
But then again I don't know a single Catholic who believes heaven is gained through "Porgoitory slips." But then again my experience with Catholics is primarily Australian and Irish in nature, and certainly far from comprehensive. I have no doubt there are Catholics who believe more has to be done to get into heaven.
Just as there are Christians who believe they have to: avoid science and medicine and/or modern appliances and/or politics and/or self flagellate and/or not wear makeup and/or have women working in the home only and/or believe they have to energetically convert anyone with even the slightest different views and/or... well, you get the picture. There are plenty of Christians who believe in "Jesus Christ our Savior" who also believe more is needed, and feel it is justified by their interpretation of the Bible.
In fact, if that somehow refers to purgatory there has been recent talk of Pope nowsit scrapping such outside areas of doctrine - no more purgatory or limbo.
I believe it does quite well, but you are indeed entitled to your opinion.
Ok, would you care to explain in a clear and concise fashion the way in which Abraham influenced cultures some distance from the region he was in before he lived and after - since there were primitive cultures around at the same theoretical time Abraham was. And since there is more then a little evidence of spiritual (if not religious) beliefs in "primitive" tribes and the like (we are talking 8000+ years at a minimum here.) And those people who had nothing to do with, nor originated from, his sphere of influence? The variety of cultures that show not a single acknowledgement of Abraham until after contact with those that did?
Yup. Although the original story fell more along the lines of the Christian one, as Abraham is obviously not a God. The "Brahma" sect is still one of the largest one's of Hinduism today. And before you ask, no the original information on Abraham's Hindu roots was not quickly googled..
I love history, and have always liked Hinduism (narratively , conceptually and as a practice) and to be honest I had no idea there was a theory Brahma, one of highest Hindu gods, is believed by some to simply be Abraham by another name.
A theory, it seems, that has yet to make it into the mainstream of historical study. Could there be a reason for that? Naturally of course since you support the claim that the sacred and divine of other cultures are just Christian things of another name you would also be open to the concept that so many Christian things might be derived from other cultures beliefs? Mithra and Jesus? Ancient Sumerian creation myths? And so on? I mean surely it must work both ways.
And remember, although one can't truly say who will be considered a Christian in the end, it's still important for those who have faith in Christ, to assist one another when they see each other struggling along the path, or as Jesus puts it..they should "love one another."
*takes a deep breath in* I love the smell of misinterpretation in the morning...
Jesus certainly does tell us to "love one another." Jesus loved humankind on earth by becoming friends with Gentiles and prostitutes, outcasts and sinners, by healing the sick, feeding the hungry... etc. etc. I don't recall a time when he sat down a group of people and said, "All right now, believe this or you're going to DIE!!!"
"Loving one another" DOES NOT mean preaching endlessly about how everyone should believe what you believe, or else... all in a holier-than-thou tone. Loving one another means being a good person, bringing the kindgom of heaven to earth like Jesus did, by comforting our fellow man.
Thundar, what I think I love the most about your post(s) is that you say "we shouldn't judge," blah blah blah, especially up here, "although one can't truly say who will be a Christian in the end..." *meaning: I am a true Christian and I can only hope that my benevolent presence amongst you heathen posters will make it so you will be too...*
Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?
Originally posted by siriuswriter
...[B]Thundar, what I think I love the most about your post(s) is that you say "we shouldn't judge," blah blah blah, especially up here, "although one can't truly say who will be a Christian in the end..." *meaning: I am a true Christian and I can only hope that my benevolent presence amongst you heathen posters will make it so you will be too...*Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical? [/B]
😆 Thank you. 😄
Originally posted by siriuswriter
Thundar, what I think I love the most about your post(s) is that you say "we shouldn't judge," blah blah blah, especially up here, "although one can't truly say who will be a Christian in the end..." *meaning: I am a true Christian and I can only hope that my benevolent presence amongst you heathen posters will make it so you will be too...*Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?
Everyone knows Thundar is god's perfect gift to the world how dare you question him 😏