• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What's your preference: Jesus Christ or Shiva the Destroyer and Lord of the Dance?

Dresden

Dresden

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,212
Why or why not?

To me, Jesus is awesome, but Shiva is downright badass. I prefer Shiva, but I think Jesus will win the global popularity contest based on his sublime teachings. What is your preference?
 
Dresden said:
Why or why not?

To me, Jesus is awesome, but Shiva is downright badass. I prefer Shiva, but I think Jesus will win the global popularity contest based on his sublime teachings. What is your preference?
Click to expand...
Shiva. But it should be noted that he's not just a destroyer in shavite teachings but creator, preserver, and destroyer. He creates by starting his cosmic dance, preserves by continuing it, and destroys by ceasing it. I find this analogy particularly fitting as a dance is one of the only act that when it is over, there's no product left over besides the memory of it. That and the fact that all matter us composed of energy making motion/dance a very fitting symbol for creation.
 
I find this analogy particularly fitting as a dance is one of the only act that when it is over, there's no product left over besides the memory of it.
Click to expand...

What? Doesn't what you described apply to practically all recreational physical activity?
Walking, swimming, fucking (while wearing a condom), doing yoga, playing sport...

I guess it's one of the few acts of creation that leaves nothing but the memory of what was created... if that's what you mean.
But, then, I don't see how it's a better analogy than a singing a song... or anything else - really - that isn't recorded by technological means.
 
ForEverAfter said:
What? Doesn't what you described apply to practically all recreational physical activity?
Walking, swimming, fucking (while wearing a condom), doing yoga, playing sport...

I guess it's one of the few acts of creation that leaves nothing but the memory of what was created... if that's what you mean.
But, then, I don't see how it's a better analogy than a singing a song... or anything else - really - that isn't recorded by technological means.
Click to expand...
For the first part it being an art and not just a physical activity is why. The whole point of a dance is to create something. The point in walking, swimming, yoga, playing a sport isn't to create something.

For the second part, a song could be a another good analogy but i don't feel its as accurate. You can write down a song and convey at least some part of it. With dance you could write a description or even illustrate the steps but those don't communicate the substance of it the way writing down the words of a song do. As for anything else not recorded.. what other art is there where there's no final product? Painting leaves the painting, sculpting leaves the sculpture, architecture leaves the building ect.
 
flying spaghetti monster.
bC4CL.jpg
 
a song could be a another good analogy but i don't feel its as accurate. You can write down a song and convey at least some part of it. With dance you could write a description or even illustrate the steps but those don't communicate the substance of it the way writing down the words of a song do. As for anything else not recorded.. what other art is there where there's no final product? Painting leaves the painting, sculpting leaves the sculpture, architecture leaves the building
Click to expand...

Songs and dance can be recorded in the same manner.
You can write down the lyrics of a song and/or the sheet music, but that isn't recording it.
Same goes for what you said about writing down / drawing the steps of a dance routine.
I don't know. I didn't really want to get into a long discussion about it.
I guess creative thought would be a better analogy.

There are tons of ways to be creative outside of song and dance.
Comedy is creative. Wit is creative. You can pour a cup of tea, creatively.
We discounted walking earlier, as physical recreation, but hell look at the Ministry of Silly Walks.
They've got it down to a fine art.

Given the (potentially) infinite nature of the universe, I don't think it makes more sense to apply one analogy to creation then it does any other.
The religion versus religion debate says this mythological rendering of the infinite and ineffable is "better" than that other one.

The universe is not a dance, so it's best not to think of it as a dance over - say - a life cycle... and vice-versa. (IMO). Better to think of it, equally, as both and neither.
I'm tempted not to mention the 2nd (AKA 3rd) Commandment, because people tend to tune out whenever there's a Judeo-Christian reference, but I think it applies.

The "graven image" Commandment, when only selectively applied, becomes - essentially - "Do not worship other Gods."
But it also means: "Do not attempt to describe the ineffable"; or, "There is no image that can truly represent God... images can, however, replace God."

The universe is no more a dance than it is a potato.
And God is no more a dancer than He is a farmer... or, indeed, a "H/he".

I don't see the point of choosing between prophets or mythological figures.
They are all imperfect. None of them are God, or anything remotely close to God.

Don't allow man's feeble attempts at artistically representing the divine obscure your ability to clearly perceive God.
Ironically, figures of worship like Jesus and Shiva are destined to become false idols.

Many Christians, unfortunately, worship Jesus over God. Or, at least, they equate them.
(By insisting that having a personal relationship with Christ is a prerequisite to having a relationship with God.)

A human being named Jesus that may or may not have lived two thousand years ago is not God any more than a puppy is.
And, God is not a dancer any more than he is a bitch (meaning, either: a female dog or an unpleasant man / woman / elf).

(IMO)

Sounds sort of like the OP is asking which is the better super hero, though...
In which case, my answer is Kali.

Kali-Bottom.gif
 
Last edited:
You make some good points and i see what you mean but is choosing one of the many ways god has be depicted through the course of history such a bad thing if it is one that speaks to you deeply?
 
It is not necessarily a bad thing to believe in one religion only, no.
Throughout most of history there have been a limited number of choices in that department.

1. You force yourself to believe in the socially acceptable religion/s of the time, for fear of punishment / exile.
2. You pretend to believe in the socially acceptable religion/s of the time, for fear of punishment / exile.
3. You genuinely believe in the socially acceptable religion/s of the time, for fear of punishment / exile.
4. You are punished / exiled.

And, options 1-3 are pretty much the same thing.

...

Now we have access to all the holy writings that exist.
There is little social expectation where I live.
I can be whatever religion I please.

To chose one of them, over all of the others, isn't a bad thing... but it has certain implications, IMO. To believe that Judaism, for example, is the "best" avenue to God (for you or anyone else) means that you believe that Judaism has "ownership" over God to some extent. I don't believe in the idea of superiority as it applies to race or religion. I try not to, anyway. It's dangerous.

You can never be close enough to God, so that you can't become any closer... so, why limit yourself to a select number of pathways (according to your subscribed religion) that work for you? The Old Testament is written by so many different people with opposing viewpoints and styles of expression, that it's confusing when you look at it as a "single religion". It is a series of books written by people from a particular area on Earth at a particular point in time. Hinduism, too, is based on a confusing and seemingly contradictory series of stories. If you compile all the holy texts ever written, and cross-reference them, you're more likely to get a clearer "image" of God. What these people are trying to describe is practically impossible. Buddha, IMO, does a remarkable job. But I don't think any of them are anywhere near perfect.

There is so much to be learned from all religions...
Most Christian people are raised Christian. This, obviously, is an easy observation to make.
What I don't understand is how they don't make the connection. That people all over the world access God by different means.
I don't like the idea of dismissing the rest of the worlds spiritual advancements, because they're not needed.

You said if a religion speaks to you deeply, then why is it a bad thing to limit yourself to it?

My response is a question.

If a religion speaks to you deeply, how do you know that all religions won't speak to you on an even deeper level?
 
viridarius said:
For the first part it being an art and not just a physical activity is why. The whole point of a dance is to create something. The point in walking, swimming, yoga, playing a sport isn't to create something.

For the second part, a song could be a another good analogy but i don't feel its as accurate. You can write down a song and convey at least some part of it. With dance you could write a description or even illustrate the steps but those don't communicate the substance of it the way writing down the words of a song do. As for anything else not recorded.. what other art is there where there's no final product? Painting leaves the painting, sculpting leaves the sculpture, architecture leaves the building ect.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I used to work as a sacred dancer in an Indian temple for many lifetimes in a row. We would dance to give people spiritual inspiration, to build a higher light or a higher ideal into them, etc.
 
I'm pretty sure that Kali is believed to be one of the many manifestations of Shiva, but I'm sure that there is a lot about Hinduism that I still don't know.
 
It depends on the denomination of Hinduism.
Kali probably varies the most, of all the Gods, according to different faiths / interpretations.
(Check out Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, if you don't believe me. ;))

Despite the variety of Gods and myths in Hinduism, there is a unity.
Everything is related, in some way, to everything else.
(Depending on who you happen to talk to.)

wikipedia (for example) said:
In the ten-armed form of Mahakali she is depicted as shining like a blue stone. She has ten faces and ten feet and three eyes. She has ornaments decked on all her limbs. There is no association with Shiva.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma...The Trinity....same shiz as Jesus, etc...different culture...That's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top