Everyone believes their God is not fictitious, and unfortunately for most, they've got no way to validate it, other then what is written in a book.I believe my God is not fictitious.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Everyone believes their God is not fictitious, and unfortunately for most, they've got no way to validate it, other then what is written in a book.I believe my God is not fictitious.
Try me.
We have the truth. We do not need any help.
I don't think we've confused it, but that there are just a lot of differing schools, not just with Hinduism, but within Saivism (the large sect that worships Siva as Supreme, or calls God Siva) itself. The trident and snake misunderstanding is really common, so welcome to the crowd.
Personally, I don't get insulted by little misunderstandings like that. It's understandable. Its only after we've explained it as well as we can, and the person still holds to their ideas stubbornly does it get more annoying. In the reverse situation, I know very very little about your faith, so if i started spouting off like some expert, you'd have every right to get upset or annoyed with me.
Everything that the Gods are depicted with are highly symbolic. But in Hinduism, snakes and tridents are not given the same meaning as in Abrahamic religions. Snakes are not 'evil', though in the Bible, the Devil decided to take that form. His choice should not be taken to mean that snakes are inherently evil.
Shiva is associated with the role of 'destruction'. This is not to mean he goes around killing. Everything in material nature has a life cycle. There is birth, maturity, and death. Death is necessary for the renewal of life. Therefore Shiva represents the bringing of the end in order to create a path for life. Shiva is known for being generous, kind and generally peaceful.
I hope that makes sense.
However I believe the name is different from Brahman so how may both be supreme and what is the difference? And if the differences are simply aspects of Brahman then why deify an aspect?
I believe that. Symbols can mean different things in different cultures. I hope you can clear this up for me.
I don't believe I get annoyed about that. I like to enlighten the misinformed.
rethinking my answer, I would say that YHVH would be equal to Ishvara whereas Brahman would probably be Ein Sof or Atzmuto??
I too believe that this is not true (Wikipedia can give views that are not as comprehensive as the breadth of Hinduism). I am a strong atheist and 'advaitist' Hindu (believing in non-duality) and I do not believe either in soul or in Gods. Brahman for me is the entity which constitutes all things in the universe. What is closest to Brahman is 'physical energy', that is what e started with at the time of Big Bang. That changed into atoms and has formed all thing in the universe. The correct meaning of 'atman' is not soul but 'self'. 'Self' is a temporary phenomenon. Bascially I am composed of atoms and these atoms ill disintegrate after my death to make other combinations in nature.The term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman) [Wikipedia]
I believe this is not true. What evidence is there to support this view?
I believe a lot of people think they have the truth when they do not. There are a lot of things I don't know because God doesn't tell me everything but I do trust what He tells me is true.
Brahman is not a God. It is a totally different, it is the totality of existence.However I believe the name is different from Brahman so how may both be supreme and what is the difference? And if the differences are simply aspects of Brahman then why deify an aspect?
I like to enlighten the misinformed.
Nothing ever gets destroyed. Only the form changes. That happens equally to all things, living or non-living.I believe then that "destruction" is a misnomer because the living being is not destroyed but simply ceases to function as a living being.
If things get out of balance God may have to eliminate people to bring things back into balance.
In Christianity death is not necessary for people if the people are not regenerating.
Many would beg to differ on that; personally would say the exact opposite, that the atman shouldn't mean self in the slightest.The correct meaning of 'atman' is not soul but 'self'.
Indeed the self is only an association of life force having experience within a body.'Self' is a temporary phenomenon.
Christianity believes virtually the same, that God being the great 'I Am' was jesus, and by 'desiring the mind of jesus', you become like him, also having this 'I Am' consciousness.What evidence is there to support this view?
Kettle calling the pot; both are man made texts passed down over millennia, that have been heavily anthropomorphized.Perhaps not the whole truth but even then it is better than a collection of writings edited in the fourth Century of the Christian era.
Stephen Hawking perceives if there is black-holes, there will be white-holes emitting reality to mathematically make sense.It is science that can tell you the truth.
I believe then that "destruction" is a misnomer because the living being is not destroyed but simply ceases to function as a living being. For the Christian the destroyer (the devil) is ending the cycle before its time e.g. killing someone that should not be killed.
I do not believe this is the case. There is a renewal of life when a woman gives birth and she does not have to die to do that. It is necessary for the old to die to make way for the living. It is the way a balance of living things is kept. If things get out of balance God may have to eliminate people to bring things back into balance.
In Christianity death is not necessary for people if the people are not regenerating. The balance is maintained by not renewing life by having babies.
I agree. It's probably a bad translation. Shiva is most certainly not similar to the Abrahamic 'devil'.
Sure. My explanation was simplistic for easy understanding. Death is not necessary for a baby to be born. However that baby is born, matures, and dies one day. Each phase is associated with one of the trinity gods in Hinduism. But the life cycle of a human is only one obvious example of this cyclic pattern in existence.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, to be honest. It sounds like you're saying that people won't die if they don't have children but I's sure I'm misinterpreting.
I believe you are misinterpreting. I believe people would not die if they did not age. God has to compensate for the fact that people don't die by causing a lack of regeneration by childbirth. So it is my belief in the Kingdom of God there is no birth and very little death (accidents can still happen). The same people are on earth for thousands of years. Anyone not here is locked out.