not exactly.

adorning the north and south walls are friezes depicting 18 great lawgivers: menes, hammurabi, solomon, lycurgus, solon, draco, confucius and octavian on the south wall; justinian, mohammed, charlemagne, king john, louis IX, hugo grotius, sir william blackstone, john marshall and napoleon on the north wall.

per the office of the curator of the supreme court of the united states, those 18 individuals were deliberately chosen to represent secular law:

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law.
Note that Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.)

while those of you who purchase cars from foreign entities aren't really bad americans, i can't say the same for anyone celebrating the financial misfortunes of our economy. this is perhaps the most disgusting expression of anti-american sentiment i've seen posted on ju.

you'll be equally outraged should some members of the one, true and apostolic church try to recite the apostles' creed out loud hoping to drown out heretical rantings of the next evangelical protestant invited to offer a prayer?

Watched the video. Disturbing.

How those people believe they're doing God's will is beyond me. They're being divisive, and the spirit of contention is of the devil. If anything, they're having him as their master instead of Him who should be so.

Tex said it best with "disgusting". I would only add a "most" at the the beginning.

"Land of the Free", indeed.

Or maybe in these people's eyes it's "Land of the Free, as long as you agree with me."

Sounds pretty dictatorial to me.

Mainstream Hinduism is monotheistic. The aspects or lesser gods - Shiva, Kali, Vishnu et al - are merely considered paths to understanding a single portion of the incomprehensible that is divinity. Catholics do a similar thing with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and Protestants do it with God and Jesus. Only Jews and Muslims could really be said to be monotheistic if we reject the idea of aspect worship.

Eh, not quite.  Some view Hinduism as Monotheistic, as the lesser gods are merely paths to the one true supreme God.  So it is not like the trinity, but more like Angels and Arch Angels of the Judeo Christian religion.  Since they do not call them angels, but gods (lesser as they may be), a more accurate term is Henotheistic.

While Hinduism predates most of the Judeo-Christian religions, there is controversy about when it exactly was started.  Some place the date at about 4000 BC, which would make it in the same time frame as Judaism.  One school of thought places the initial tenets with a migration of Asian/European tribes that brought some of their religion down with them when they migrated to India (the heart of Hinduism), but others dispute that school of thought.  However, if true, it would open up the possibility that Hinduism is descendant from the same roots as Judaism, or at least the sprang up at the same time, from the same general area.

There are many similarities with Judaism and Hinduism, and many differences (just so the record is straight).  It could well be that the 2 did spring from the same source, just changed by different cultures, or that they are completely independant of each other and just a coincidence.  More likely, competing theories will continue as there are not a lot of written texts from early Hinduism, just a lot of oral history.

You might want to quote your sources in future, Dr Guy. It's clear you didn't write that.

On what you quoted:
I'm not too good at describing religious stuff. By aspect I meant the idea behind the trinity - 3 parts or faces of the same divinity. From what I understand in Hinduism each 'god' could be considered an aspect.

Of course famous Hindu myths like the Ramayana and others disassociate these aspects, but then again so does the bible disassociate God from Jesus and, to a lesser extent, the Holy Spirit.

I haven't really covered enough of the great texts of Hinduism to be sure, but the little I know from Balinese Hinduism does seem to point towards some expression of faith through aspected divinity.

Perhaps it will turn out I was being incredibly ignorant, but I dislike seeing religions smeared for worshipping multiple gods when that's not necessarily the case.

EDIT: The wikipedia article on henotheism suggests Hinduism could be considered polytheistic, monotheistic and henotheistic. I dunno which texts the good senator chose to reference, so I guess I'm too ignorant to comment on which Hinduism he professes or whether he's an insult to American's apparently self-apparent monotheism.

It is clear I did, with misspellings and all. While my knowledge is fairly old (I took the course in High school), I can google to see if it is more up to date.

However, (and yes, some of it was my interpretation of my knowledge of Hinduism), The trinity of Demigods - Rama, Vishnu, and Shiva - are more akin to the Archangels of the Judeo Christianity than of the trinity of "God, Jesus and the Holy spirit".

Perhaps before laying out unfounded accusations, you would do well to read what is said, and then try to find it on the internet. If you find what I wrote anywhere other than in here, I would be greatly surprised as - as I state - it is based upon my knowledge and my interpretation of said knowledge.

I guess I should be flattered that you took my writing to be so well as that I must have plagarized it. Perhaps if yours was as well written, we would assume the same.

Anti-American, eh? Financial misfortune? Well, if not knowing how much you need to charge for a car to make a profit is 'misfortune' and not 'stupid' I'm guilty. And celebrating the free economy helping to improve a company that needs it is in the American spirit. Because if they don't want to post similar 2007 results, they'll do something different.

cactoblasta posts #7 :




This shows that you neither understand the Catholic, Protestant nor the Hindu religion.

Hinduism is polytheistic, that is, Hindus worship many gods and goddesses. Jewish and Christian people view worship of any god or anything other than the One God as idolatry.

Christians believe there is only one God. In God, there are three persons, the Father, the SOn and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are one and the same God; they are not three Gods.

Hehe. I"m getting paid for my writing so I'm totally comfortable with my style. My apologies for the unwarranted accusation. But you'd have to admit you tend to write with a more, shall we say, arcane style than what you wrote up there. It was remarkably lucid.

More of the same if you please monsieur Guy!

It depends upon the subject matter. I have been fascinated by Hinduism since I had to research and write the paper on it back in HS (I threatened to do a paper on Alexander the great as I was more into European history at the time - and my teacher said I could - although he said that was kind of cheating), but decided to do it on India and Hinduism.

So in that, I am dispassionate, and can write without injecting my feelings into it. Where I write mostly, on issues of the day (I dont see this one as being an issue, just a chance to discuss the subject I am interested in), I do tend to editorialize more.

I accept your appology, and offer my own for perhaps taking your statement too personally.

As an aside, perhaps my views of Hinduism are colored by my belief in one God and message, and that it is man, the imperfect factor in the equataion, that hears things slightly different. And thus we have many religions (beliefs if you want), but with a common theme, just different traditions and trappings.

KFC WRITES:

I'm glad that AFA brought this to our attention and called for a boycott in 2006. I think that both the boycott and Ford's product and service figure into the equation for Ford's dropped sales figures.

SCONN1 Posts:

This may be true, Sean, but Ford is blatant about its advocacy by sponsoring the promotion of homosexuality and "homosex marriage".

So Christians using the power of the purse to stand up for Jesus Christ and His commands in the workplace is a "disgusting expression" to you Kingbee?

You want "disgusting expression", I'd suggest go to the next Ford sponsored "gay pride" parade or festival (but keep your little ones at home!).

there is no such thing...and this lil term you made up just shows how much of a hateful fraud you are.

it's "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage" or "homosexual marriage"

"homosex" is not a word. it's an infammatory term you and your buddies made up. the only people who use this term are you and the other militant religious zealots who want to impose their so-called morality on everyone.

and if you fools think that your lil protest had thing 1 to do with Ford's numbers, you are truly nuts.

and if you think ford is the only company that does things for the gay community, you are truly stupid. go pick up a copy of the advocate or other gay publications, where you will find ads from just about every company you can think of.

most big companies offer and some require diversity training. most big companies include groups that work for gay causes when giving to charities every year. many of them sponsor events, particularly social or sporting events that are gay oriented.

what ford does is nothing out of the ordinary in corporate america.