Muloghonto Posted March 6 Posted March 6 3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: No. But the panth/sect originated from Karnataka. Hence, I know more about them. Have a lot of friends Oh OK. Well they aint Hindus. Hinduism isn't western LGBT movement where any stuck can self identify as a Hindu while not being one, same as idiot western transgender self identifying as women when not being one. Vicks57 1
zen Posted March 6 Posted March 6 The Saudi crown prince is correct. While the fundamentals remain constant, the rules designed to address issues of people living 1,000s of years ago , where many times religious and civil laws mingled, may now not necessarily be applicable. BacktoCricaddict 1
coffee_rules Posted March 6 Posted March 6 (edited) 4 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Oh OK. Well they aint Hindus. Hinduism isn't western LGBT movement where any stuck can self identify as a Hindu while not being one, same as idiot western transgender self identifying as women when not being one. You are confusing Vedic beliefs with Hinduism. Lingayats workship Shiva who is a god in Hindusim which Vedic Sanatan Dharma adopted as well. Shaivism predates Vedas. The Lingayats rejected Vedas , but their belief in one god resembles that of monotheism. Because by the time Basaveshwara opposed the Varna system. in the 12th centuy, India had already seen abrahamic faiths of Islam. 200 years later , Sharanas started the Lingayat cult extending Basaveshwara's beliefs as a cult / panth of Hindusim, never considered themsevles separate from Hindusim , like they want to do it now for political reasons. Some Hindi sects can believe only in Shakta/Tantra/Shiva/Vishnu, but all are embodied under Hindusim. Edited March 6 by coffee_rules Vicks57 1
Muloghonto Posted March 6 Posted March 6 2 hours ago, coffee_rules said: You are confusing Vedic beliefs with Hinduism. Lingayats workship Shiva who is a god in Hindusim which Vedic Sanatan Dharma adopted as well. Shaivism predates Vedas. The Lingayats rejected Vedas , but their belief in one god resembles that of monotheism. Because by the time Basaveshwara opposed the Varna system. 200 years later , Sharanas started the Lingayat cult extending Basaveshwara's beliefs as a cult / panth of Hindusim, never considered themsevles separate from Hindusim , like they want to do it now for political reasons. Some Hindi sects can believe only in Shakta/Tantra/Shiva/Vishnu, but all are embodied under Hindusim. No. I am not. I am simply pointing out that only one god and no other god = monotheism = decisively refuted in Hindu cannon. One god above all other gods = monism = supported by Hindu cannon. One cannot refute theory of X and still be X, that's western postmodernistic dehatism
coffee_rules Posted March 6 Posted March 6 40 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: No. I am not. I am simply pointing out that only one god and no other god = monotheism = decisively refuted in Hindu cannon. One god above all other gods = monism = supported by Hindu cannon. One cannot refute theory of X and still be X, that's western postmodernistic dehatism Now, I get it, It is the latter for Lingayats too, there are other gods , I like mine better, instead of mine is the only true god and rest all are baklolis.
Vilander Posted March 6 Posted March 6 1, Export radicals everywhere 2, post progressive shiznet sound waves in forums and material no radical consumes 3, win
Muloghonto Posted March 6 Posted March 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, coffee_rules said: Now, I get it, It is the latter for Lingayats too, there are other gods , I like mine better, instead of mine is the only true god and rest all are baklolis. Ok so lingayats are monists, not monotheists. Correct ?? For eg, technically hare Krishnas are monists : they do not deny other gods, they just ascribe supremacy to vishnu/say Vishnu is ultimate Roop of all gods. Aka 1 god > rest, not 1 god and no other gods, so monist. Edited March 6 by Muloghonto
coffee_rules Posted March 6 Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Ok so lingayats are monists, not monotheists. Correct ?? For eg, technically hare Krishnas are monists : they do not deny other gods, they just ascribe supremacy to vishnu/say Vishnu is ultimate Roop of all gods. Aka 1 god > rest, not 1 god and no other gods, so monist. Yes, it is a similar comparison
kepler37b Posted March 9 Author Posted March 9 On 3/7/2025 at 12:21 AM, Vilander said: 1, Export radicals everywhere 2, post progressive shiznet sound waves in forums and material no radical consumes 3, win Other big islamic leaders are **** scared to even approach this subject. Even the darling of uncle sam like karzai did not talk like that. Let's give him some props.
kepler37b Posted March 9 Author Posted March 9 On 3/6/2025 at 7:37 PM, zen said: The Saudi crown prince is correct. While the fundamentals remain constant, the rules designed to address issues of people living 1,000s of years ago , where many times religious and civil laws mingled, may now not necessarily be applicable. A lot changed. Also great to see a muslim talk anything other than .."we were great conquerors bro.." zen 1
kepler37b Posted March 9 Author Posted March 9 (edited) On 3/5/2025 at 1:33 AM, Muloghonto said: OH NO !!! Crown Prince of Saudi is a RSS andhbhakth. Only RSS andhbhakt can say Koran flawed and needs to move on and change Modi must have done jadu-tona on MBS last time he met him- thats why he hugs people so tightly - to put jadu tona jari-buti on their skin to work kaalaa jaadu on them Therefore, Mudi must rejine. Mudiji..the gujju king. Never thought a state of paisoo counting, gold hoarding sethjis will produce a chad. to his haters. Edited March 9 by kepler37b Muloghonto 1
Recommended Posts