What's new

Dharmic religion - gaining a new understanding

finalfantasy7 said:

Hare Krishna Gets Challenged By Muslim | Smile2jannah Speakers Corner | 4K​


Source:


Is it true that Krishna married 16,108 women

@uppercut @Obaidd @jnaveen1980 @cricketjoshila
Click to expand...
Nah. It was a symbolic marriage.

According to Hindu Mythology (Bhagavat Purana), Demon Narakasura kidnaps 16000 women and keeps them in his palace. When SriKrishna kills Narakasura and rescues those 16000 women, they were considered tainted as they were captives under the Demon.
To grant them their social status back, SriKrishna marries symbolically to prove their dignity. Then their families and the villagers accept those women as their chastity was proven.

Before you troll, at least do some basic research.

Another thing is, I don't believe SriKrishna is not just one character. He was a king of Yadava Clan and was a prominent figure who tried to make peace between Kauravas and Pandavas. Jainism explains it better. SriKrishna is called Vasudeva in Jain Texts. According to them, there are many Vasudevas and not just one. My theory is that SriKrishna's 8 wives are not of one person. But 8 Vasudevas and their consorts.

Anyway, this Smile2Jannah is a joke. They have to bring in SriKrishna's wives to explain the many wives of Prophet Muhammad. :mv
 
finalfantasy7 said:
@uppercut - you told me that hindus cant eat meat - here more proof:

kshatriyas eat meat :






@sweep_shot
Click to expand...
Hindus can eat meat. This includes Brahmins and all the 4 Varnas which were the original Vedic tribes.

Vegetarianism got into modern Hinduism.as Vedic religion accepted many teachings of Jainism and Buddhism which were strictly against Jeeva Himsa (Animal cruelty).

However modern Hinduism only put the meat restriction on Brahmins and Vaishyas who did not do physical labor. But Kshatriyas and Shudras can eat meat as they needed the protein to do their job(Dharma).

I don't know why people conflate Hinduism with vegetarianism. 90% of Hindus are non-veggies. Majority Sikhs are also veggies. Punjab is one of the states with the highest rates of Vegetarianism in India.
 
Champ_Pal said:
Hindus can eat meat. This includes Brahmins and all the 4 Varnas which were the original Vedic tribes.

Vegetarianism got into modern Hinduism.as Vedic religion accepted many teachings of Jainism and Buddhism which were strictly against Jeeva Himsa (Animal cruelty).

However modern Hinduism only put the meat restriction on Brahmins and Vaishyas who did not do physical labor. But Kshatriyas and Shudras can eat meat as they needed the protein to do their job(Dharma).

I don't know why people conflate Hinduism with vegetarianism. 90% of Hindus are non-veggies. Majority Sikhs are also veggies. Punjab is one of the states with the highest rates of Vegetarianism in India.
Click to expand...
i know mots of what you said, its @uppercut who keeps saying all hindus cant eat meat, i've told him hes wrong plenty of times - now hes gone into hiding
 
Champ_Pal said:
Nah. It was a symbolic marriage.

According to Hindu Mythology (Bhagavat Purana), Demon Narakasura kidnaps 16000 women and keeps them in his palace. When SriKrishna kills Narakasura and rescues those 16000 women, they were considered tainted as they were captives under the Demon.
To grant them their social status back, SriKrishna marries symbolically to prove their dignity. Then their families and the villagers accept those women as their chastity was proven.

Before you troll, at least do some basic research.

Another thing is, I don't believe SriKrishna is not just one character. He was a king of Yadava Clan and was a prominent figure who tried to make peace between Kauravas and Pandavas. Jainism explains it better. SriKrishna is called Vasudeva in Jain Texts. According to them, there are many Vasudevas and not just one. My theory is that SriKrishna's 8 wives are not of one person. But 8 Vasudevas and their consorts.

Anyway, this Smile2Jannah is a joke. They have to bring in SriKrishna's wives to explain the many wives of Prophet Muhammad. :mv
Click to expand...
not what other videos i have - i have many more videos, when this questioned is asked and the hindu even says - yes he did - and tries to pr spin it - just like how you did lol

dont you worry, you know i like to keep my articles and videos, im playing the slow torture game - i will post more regarding this topic, keep worrying.
 
finalfantasy7 said:
not what other videos i have - i have many more videos, when this questioned is asked and the hindu even says - yes he did - and tries to pr spin it - just like how you did lol

dont you worry, you know i like to keep my articles and videos, im playing the slow torture game - i will post more regarding this topic, keep worrying.
Click to expand...
So you believe what is written in Bhagavatpurana is wrong about SriKrishna.

Cool story bro. You can hate all you want on Hinduism. What is written is scriptures is what matters. Not your opinion. :mv
 
Champ_Pal said:
So you believe what is written in Bhagavatpurana is wrong about SriKrishna.

Cool story bro. You can hate all you want on Hinduism. What is written is scriptures is what matters. Not your opinion. :mv
Click to expand...
champ thrs wre your wrong, no hindu can prove a lineage between the scriptures within hinduism = thr all written way after , just like the "bible" @Hitman


cool story bro @Champ_Pal :ROFLMAO:
 
finalfantasy7 said:
champ thrs wre your wrong, no hindu can prove a lineage between the scriptures within hinduism = thr all written way after , just like the "bible" @Hitman


cool story bro @Champ_Pal :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Huh??

What lineage are you talking? I don’t believe in any of the stories written in Hindu Puranas. They are mythology at best. But if you are commenting on these stories, you have to believe in scriptures.
 
BunnyRabbit said:
why are you getting triggered on someone's comments about hinduism if you're an atheist?
Click to expand...
When someone spouts nonsense, it is my duty to correct. I do the same if someone comments on Christianity too.

Islamic view is very narrow. Have to expose the lies that many Muslims spew on other religions. My interest is in all religions.
 
Champ_Pal said:
Nah. It was a symbolic marriage.

According to Hindu Mythology (Bhagavat Purana), Demon Narakasura kidnaps 16000 women and keeps them in his palace. When SriKrishna kills Narakasura and rescues those 16000 women, they were considered tainted as they were captives under the Demon.
To grant them their social status back, SriKrishna marries symbolically to prove their dignity. Then their families and the villagers accept those women as their chastity was proven.

Before you troll, at least do some basic research.

Another thing is, I don't believe SriKrishna is not just one character. He was a king of Yadava Clan and was a prominent figure who tried to make peace between Kauravas and Pandavas. Jainism explains it better. SriKrishna is called Vasudeva in Jain Texts. According to them, there are many Vasudevas and not just one. My theory is that SriKrishna's 8 wives are not of one person. But 8 Vasudevas and their consorts.

Anyway, this Smile2Jannah is a joke. They have to bring in SriKrishna's wives to explain the many wives of Prophet Muhammad. :mv
Click to expand...

Krishna married them symbolically , not physically what is the evidence of that ? You gave the reason of his marriage , not the evidence of it being symbolically .
 
Champ_Pal said:
Huh??

What lineage are you talking? I don’t believe in any of the stories written in Hindu Puranas. They are mythology at best. But if you are commenting on these stories, you have to believe in scriptures.
Click to expand...

would yu believe in a god or gods if the scripture was written hundred to thousands of yrs after??? and the wording has been chnaged multiple of times, or in hindus case the above with gods stories chnaging state by state ???

cuz thats proves the scripture to be false - i have no idea how you thought it doesnt prove it to be false?

 
finalfantasy7 said:
would yu believe in a god or gods if the scripture was written hundred to thousands of yrs after??? and the wording has been chnaged multiple of times, or in hindus case the above with gods stories chnaging state by state ???

cuz thats proves the scripture to be false - i have no idea how you thought it doesnt prove it to be false?

Click to expand...
How does it matter if the story was written down hundreds and thousands of years after the events have passed?
Even your entire Sunnah comes 2 centuries after the supposed Prophet's death. All passed down by Chinese whispers. He said, she said bla bla bla…
Even if a story is written down as the event was unfolding , it does not make it any better. Humans always embellish the events to create more sensationalism. :mv
 
Champ_Pal said:
How does it matter if the story was written down hundreds and thousands of years after the events have passed?
Even your entire Sunnah comes 2 centuries after the supposed Prophet's death. All passed down by Chinese whispers. He said, she said bla bla bla…
Even if a story is written down as the event was unfolding , it does not make it any better. Humans always embellish the events to create more sensationalism. :mv
Click to expand...
yet again youve made a basic error off understanding Bukhari which was around 2 centuries after, again you need to do soem research on your first question = Look YT will give you the answer, you most likely find a short 20sec video - like i said you struggle to watch anything in detail.

Bold part - well if you look at the bible you will understand how people then went into catholism, christianity, greek orthodox, syriac orthodoox, , Ethiopian bible, russian orthodox = remember for the bible followers - thr are over 100 sects who all differ on the teachings and even the written bible = never mind the translation = like i said previously catholism, christianity, greek orthodox, syriac orthodoox, russian orthodox all disagree on the amount of books which create the bible

thats a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge contradiction, so this is where us muslims debate with the above followers and queston them where did they get the passage from, who said this, was this from jesus of the disciples = this is where the bible followers all make thr mistakes - they've copied so any different manuscripts from parts = they then contradict themselves = then when you compare the translation = they get stuck more = then the muslim has to tell the "ALL OF THE ABOVE LISTED CHRISTIANS" what language did jesus speak = they say hebrew = we correct them saying no he was a jew but didnt speak hebrew = they look confused = we muslims then say go back to the bible and re read = showing them jesus was a jew who spoke aramaic = when you translate aramaic into the first christian manuscripts (greek) - they are massive chnages



Heres some short videos to watch:



Your lie this indian below - making no sense:



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_hVtDSqwn54

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kHNpu_hh4fE

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TmnEk4iTX3A

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sNuUC6Pxmws

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VkJSZYk9-S8



Now go to bed
 
finalfantasy7 said:
yet again youve made a basic error off understanding Bukhari which was around 2 centuries after, again you need to do soem research on your first question = Look YT will give you the answer, you most likely find a short 20sec video - like i said you struggle to watch anything in detail.

Bold part - well if you look at the bible you will understand how people then went into catholism, christianity, greek orthodox, syriac orthodoox, , Ethiopian bible, russian orthodox = remember for the bible followers - thr are over 100 sects who all differ on the teachings and even the written bible = never mind the translation = like i said previously catholism, christianity, greek orthodox, syriac orthodoox, russian orthodox all disagree on the amount of books which create the bible

thats a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge contradiction, so this is where us muslims debate with the above followers and queston them where did they get the passage from, who said this, was this from jesus of the disciples = this is where the bible followers all make thr mistakes - they've copied so any different manuscripts from parts = they then contradict themselves = then when you compare the translation = they get stuck more = then the muslim has to tell the "ALL OF THE ABOVE LISTED CHRISTIANS" what language did jesus speak = they say hebrew = we correct them saying no he was a jew but didnt speak hebrew = they look confused = we muslims then say go back to the bible and re read = showing them jesus was a jew who spoke aramaic = when you translate aramaic into the first christian manuscripts (greek) - they are massive chnages



Heres some short videos to watch:



Your lie this indian below - making no sense:



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_hVtDSqwn54

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kHNpu_hh4fE

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TmnEk4iTX3A

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sNuUC6Pxmws

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VkJSZYk9-S8



Now go to bed
Click to expand...
I don't have all the time in the day to watch these speakers corners debates.

Who cares whose God is better or which philosophy is better? What matters is Muslims blatantly disrespect Christian faith. That is the point I was making.

Now if you want to debate with me why and how Islam is better, go ahead. I will happily prove you wrong. :dw
 
Champ_Pal said:
I don't have all the time in the day to watch these speakers corners debates.

Who cares whose God is better or which philosophy is better? What matters is Muslims blatantly disrespect Christian faith. That is the point I was making.

Now if you want to debate with me why and how Islam is better, go ahead. I will happily prove you wrong. :dw
Click to expand...
Well Muslims are told to be respectful to The People of the book (Jews and Christians). You'd know if you actually knew Islam. Please stick to your own religion.
 
Champ_Pal said:
Nah. It was a symbolic marriage.

According to Hindu Mythology (Bhagavat Purana), Demon Narakasura kidnaps 16000 women and keeps them in his palace. When SriKrishna kills Narakasura and rescues those 16000 women, they were considered tainted as they were captives under the Demon.
To grant them their social status back, SriKrishna marries symbolically to prove their dignity. Then their families and the villagers accept those women as their chastity was proven.

Before you troll, at least do some basic research.

Another thing is, I don't believe SriKrishna is not just one character. He was a king of Yadava Clan and was a prominent figure who tried to make peace between Kauravas and Pandavas. Jainism explains it better. SriKrishna is called Vasudeva in Jain Texts. According to them, there are many Vasudevas and not just one. My theory is that SriKrishna's 8 wives are not of one person. But 8 Vasudevas and their consorts.

Anyway, this Smile2Jannah is a joke. They have to bring in SriKrishna's wives to explain the many wives of Prophet Muhammad. :mv
Click to expand...
Most of these people who debate on the streets are joke. It is impossible to gain an in-depth knowledge into so many other religions to debate effectively.

Islam and Christianity debates can work because they are in the same framework and acknowledge mainly the same things.

Doesn't really work between Islam and Hinduism as well.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Most of these people who debate on the streets are joke. It is impossible to gain an in-depth knowledge into so many other religions to debate effectively.

Islam and Christianity debates can work because they are in the same framework and acknowledge mainly the same things.

Doesn't really work between Islam and Hinduism as well.
Click to expand...

I think people who debate on the street are probably not that knowledgeable by scholar terms, but compared to ordinary laymen they will be far better informed. Most of them would wipe the floor with the posters on here.

That doesn't make them right of course, just they tend to know their own fields.
 
Champ_Pal said:
I don't have all the time in the day to watch these speakers corners debates.

Who cares whose God is better or which philosophy is better? What matters is Muslims blatantly disrespect Christian faith. That is the point I was making.

Now if you want to debate with me why and how Islam is better, go ahead. I will happily prove you wrong. :dw
Click to expand...
so you still can't read and comprehend argumennts

this thread is about Dharmic - stop derailing the thread
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Most of these people who debate on the streets are joke. It is impossible to gain an in-depth knowledge into so many other religions to debate effectively.

Islam and Christianity debates can work because they are in the same framework and acknowledge mainly the same things.

Doesn't really work between Islam and Hinduism as well.
Click to expand...
fully disagree - many of these debaters challenge the top debaters from (in this case ) oxford and cambridge - some are even educated from oxford.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I think people who debate on the street are probably not that knowledgeable by scholar terms, but compared to ordinary laymen they will be far better informed. Most of them would wipe the floor with the posters on here.

That doesn't make them right of course, just they tend to know their own fields.
Click to expand...
forget the posters on here - keyboard warriors, just look at champ - he didnt know anything, hitman never says anything - runs away, uppercut tries but constantly contradicts himself - just like how he says no hindu can eat beef === southern hindu do and have always done :





Anyways back to the topic of dharmic
 
 
SpiritOf1903 said:
Is it possible Hinduism is a plagiarism or expansion if Zoroastrianism..
Click to expand...
It's a mishmash of a bunch of belief systems but seems unlikely to have been influenced too much by Zoroastrianism since that was mostly monotheistic while Hinduism even in the earliest books like the Rig Veda preferred a pantheon.

Most of the Abrahamic religions like Jewism, Christianity and Islam owe their concepts to (or if you prefer the term, plagiarise) Zoroastrianism though.
 
Red-Indian said:
It's a mishmash of a bunch of belief systems but seems unlikely to have been influenced too much by Zoroastrianism since that was mostly monotheistic while Hinduism even in the earliest books like the Rig Veda preferred a pantheon.

Most of the Abrahamic religions like Jewism, Christianity and Islam owe their concepts to (or if you prefer the term, plagiarise) Zoroastrianism though.
Click to expand...
Monotheism started with Adam AS ... so no, they don't
 
SpiritOf1903 said:
Monotheism started with Adam AS ... so no, they don't
Click to expand...
Sorry am not sure Adamas is. Do you mean the Adam and Eve dude from the Bible?

I remember having a very enlightening discussion with @ElRaja on this point a while ago. I think it's most likely either Judaism or Zoroastrianism invented monotheism. Judaism is probably the better bet since they sort of transitioned from pantheism/polytheism to monotheism during the Babylonian exile.
 
Red-Indian said:
Sorry am not sure Adamas is. Do you mean the Adam and Eve dude from the Bible?

I remember having a very enlightening discussion with @ElRaja on this point a while ago. I think it's most likely either Judaism or Zoroastrianism invented monotheism. Judaism is probably the better bet since they sort of transitioned from pantheism/polytheism to monotheism during the Babylonian exile.
Click to expand...
Prophet Abraham ( Peace With Him) preached monotheism. He predates Judaism.... Islamic belief is founded on the belief there were prophets from the first man Adam, to the Prophet Muhammad (Upon Him peace)
 
Religion is an outdated concepts and hopefully it will be wiped out from mother Earth in next 100 years. Then India Pak and Bangladesh can become one powerful country
 
Red-Indian said:
Sorry am not sure Adamas is. Do you mean the Adam and Eve dude from the Bible?

I remember having a very enlightening discussion with @ElRaja on this point a while ago. I think it's most likely either Judaism or Zoroastrianism invented monotheism. Judaism is probably the better bet since they sort of transitioned from pantheism/polytheism to monotheism during the Babylonian exile.
Click to expand...
the oldest written account of the omnicient omnipresent god of the abrahamic faith in his current form is in proto isaiah where the localised god of the israelites becomes a universal god of all, this likely happened during the babylonian exile as the israelites did not want to lose connection to their god because they left their land, and further reinforced by the idea of the word being the creation force in genesis by the preistly class around the same time.
 
finalfantasy7 said:

Hinduism Or Islam: Facts that Hindus Never Knew!​



Click to expand...

Summary​

If by monotheism we mean the idea of a single transcendent God who creates the universe out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as in the Abrahamic religions, then that is not found in the history of Hinduism. But if we mean a supreme, transcendent deity who impels the universe, sustains it and ultimately destroys it before causing it to emerge once again, who is the ultimate source of all other gods who are her or his emanations, then this idea does develop within that history. It is a Hindu monotheism and its nature that is the topic of this Element.
Click to expand...

www.cambridge.org

Hindu Monotheism

Cambridge Core - Religion: General Interest - Hindu Monotheism
www.cambridge.org www.cambridge.org
 
Josh said:
Religion is an outdated concepts and hopefully it will be wiped out from mother Earth in next 100 years. Then India Pak and Bangladesh can become one powerful country
Click to expand...

Lol. Only the Indians can vote for hindutva then claim that they will unite the subcontinent by getting rid of religion.

With these levels of cognitive dissonance is it any wonder they have no idea where they are headed?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Lol. Only the Indians can vote for hindutva then claim that they will unite the subcontinent by getting rid of religion.

With these levels of cognitive dissonance is it any wonder they have no idea where they are headed?
Click to expand...

To be specific, only around 30% of Indians have voted for Hindutva. The majority have not.

Just a matter of time before your Narendra and Asim fizzle away. Then yes, religion will fade away from the sub-continent slowly but surely.

In the UK, if similar occurs, you might need to shift from chanting "God" save the King to something else too.
 
Varun said:
To be specific, only around 30% of Indians have voted for Hindutva. The majority have not.

Just a matter of time before your Narendra and Asim fizzle away. Then yes, religion will fade away from the sub-continent slowly but surely.

In the UK, if similar occurs, you might need to shift from chanting "God" save the King to something else too.
Click to expand...

When only 30% of the Indian posters here are supporting the Dancing Queen then perhaps we might get a different impression of India. But given that India has a large percentage of minorities who might not have voted for Modi, then what does that tell us about the majority religion who probably did?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
When only 30% of the Indian posters here are supporting the Dancing Queen then perhaps we might get a different impression of India. But given that India has a large percentage of minorities who might not have voted for Modi, then what does that tell us about the majority religion who probably did?
Click to expand...

It might tell you something, but your impression and opinion doesn't matter much even in the British Isles, leave alone India or Fiji.
 
Varun said:
It might tell you something, but your impression and opinion doesn't matter much even in the British Isles, leave alone India or Fiji.
Click to expand...

I am not concerned about my opinion mattering in India or Fiji. If I was I would probably post on some Indian forum but for mental health reasons probably best to stay away from those.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I am not concerned about my opinion mattering in India or Fiji. If I was I would probably post on some Indian forum but for mental health reasons probably best to stay away from those.
Click to expand...

I'm sure writing "India India India" for ~44.7K posts over 16 years has contributed to bountiful mental health instead.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
It's been cathartic for sure. I signed up initially to discuss cricket. Imagine that! :boycott
Click to expand...

Can't blame you, both England and Pakistan* have been rubbish for much of this time period.

* If you've failed that Tebbit test.
 
Varun said:
Can't blame you, both England and Pakistan* have been rubbish for much of this time period.

* If you've failed that Tebbit test.
Click to expand...

Teams in sport go through good and bad phases, it's not about winning all the time. But cricket is a minor sport and no longer an international one. I have little interest in following the various T20 leagues.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Teams in sport go through good and bad phases, it's not about winning all the time. But cricket is a minor sport and no longer an international one. I have little interest in following the various T20 leagues.
Click to expand...

Be it minor or international, England in living memory hasn't produced a batsman who has averaged 50+ or a bowler who has averaged 25- in the only format that matters - Test Cricket - in living memory. While the rest of the world have churned out Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, McGrath, Warne, Wasim, Waqar, Steyn, etc. etc.

Nearly every time they tour India or Australia, the result is 4-1/4-0/5-0. At home against India and Australia they gasp for breath trying to draw the series. They are hopeless.
 
Varun said:
Can't blame you, both England and Pakistan* have been rubbish for much of this time period.

* If you've failed that Tebbit test.
Click to expand...
Indians can't talk about the Tebbit test when their jingoism outdoes those in India. You'll still gaslight Pakistanis
 
Varun said:
Be it minor or international, England in living memory hasn't produced a batsman who has averaged 50+ or a bowler who has averaged 25- in the only format that matters - Test Cricket - in living memory. While the rest of the world have churned out Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, McGrath, Warne, Wasim, Waqar, Steyn, etc. etc.

Nearly every time they tour India or Australia, the result is 4-1/4-0/5-0. At home against India and Australia they gasp for breath trying to draw the series. They are hopeless.
Click to expand...
Harry Brook :genius
 
SpiritOf1903 said:
Indians can't talk about the Tebbit test when their jingoism outdoes those in India. You'll still gaslight Pakistanis
Click to expand...

I don't care - never been to the UK, and have no plans.

Fight it out amongst yourselves.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
When only 30% of the Indian posters here are supporting the Dancing Queen then perhaps we might get a different impression of India. But given that India has a large percentage of minorities who might not have voted for Modi, then what does that tell us about the majority religion who probably did?
Click to expand...
If I went by this forum, I'd assume all Pakistani origin Brits were obsessed with Pakistani politics and the relationship with India. In reality, I'm sure it's only a few uncles.

Most Indians don't particularly care about their religion while voting. It's mostly about freebies, local issues, caste, community, familiarity etc.
 
Red-Indian said:
If I went by this forum, I'd assume all Pakistani origin Brits were obsessed with Pakistani politics and the relationship with India. In reality, I'm sure it's only a few uncles.

Most Indians don't particularly care about their religion while voting. It's mostly about freebies, local issues, caste, community, familiarity etc.
Click to expand...

Actually the Pakistani Brits don't post much on Pakistan politics, other than a couple who might have vested interests. India...for sure, because in my experience Indians are on every Pakistan forum, usually pushing saffron propaganda. Perhaps the other stuff is more important in India, but we don't see it. What we see is who you vote for PM and how Indian posters on sites like this idolise him.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Actually the Pakistani Brits don't post much on Pakistan politics, other than a couple who might have vested interests. India...for sure, because in my experience Indians are on every Pakistan forum, usually pushing saffron propaganda. Perhaps the other stuff is more important in India, but we don't see it. What we see is who you vote for PM and how Indian posters on sites like this idolise him.
Click to expand...

And the more you react to it, the more they'll continue doing it.

Stop being a pushover, especially to people who you will never meet.
 
Varun said:
And the more you react to it, the more they'll continue doing it.

Stop being a pushover, especially to people who you will never meet.
Click to expand...

You are assuming I am bothered by their presence. In fact they are a great source of affirmation for me. When I see the delusional support of Indian NRIs for Modi it makes me feel that Pakistan is not so bad after all.
 
Been a while since I’ve been on TimePass, I didn’t know we had yet another version of a mullah champion on PP lol.

Islamic ‘warriors’, their ‘debates’ and their never ending quest to show superiority. It’s nothing less than a disease.
 
What difference does it make what delusions you subscribe to or if you swap one delusion with another?

All the debates above are hilarious because it's basically adults discussing whose childrens fairy tales, created by medival people without much understanding of the universe, is better
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
Atheism is the last refuge for a person who can't defend his religion
Replies
60
Views
2K
rpant_gabba
rpant_gabba
MenInG
The mystic, the cricketer and the spy: Pakistan’s game of thrones (Economist)
Replies
9
Views
584
Bewal Express
B
K
The differences behind the creation of Pakistan and Israel and why those cannot be compared
Replies
76
Views
5K
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
MenInG
Pakistan cannot win the ICC World Cup 2023 as they are not mentally and physically strong enough to defeat India, England, Australia and New Zealand
2
Replies
145
Views
11K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
MenInG
"Whenever an Aurangzeb comes along, a Shivaji rises" : PM Modi
2 3 4
Replies
252
Views
14K
Suleiman
Suleiman
Back
Top