There is outrage in Kathmandu after the Nepal Supreme Court ruled that the Kumari has rights. The country has long taken a pre-pubescent girl that declared her a “living goddess” – – a nice status but it comes with a denial of school and other basic rights like freedom of movement. The ruling means the the current Kumari, nine-year-old Preeti Shakya, can be freed from a virtual ornate prison in the palace.
The reform comes on the heels of the return to democracy and elimination of the Nepali Hindu monarchy. The Kumari was used to reinforce the legitimacy of the 240-year-old monarchy.
The ruling could signal the beginning of the end of the tradition. Officials are livid at the ruling. ajan Maharajan, the vice president of the committee that looks after the Kumari and her palace. insists” “This is not good news. In any case, she is a goddess so how can court rulings apply?” He insists that the living God receives three hours of schooling a day at the palace and is not a prisoner. As the video shows below, however, the Kumari is not allowed to speak to anyone.
While the Kumari is a living princess, she loses that status when she starts menstruating — then a new Kumari is selected. The tradition obviously repels many feminists and Westerners.
For a video of the Kumari, click here.
For the full story, click here.
In fact the first definition of a god would necissarily have come from someone who was not yet a believer. It may have evolved after the person believed, but you can not believe in a god before you define him. So not only is it a logical fallacy, it is downright wrong.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:56 am
You do not have to believe in a god in order to define one. Another logical fallacy
Once again, in order for a god to have been defined as anything other than FAIRY TALES, someone would have to first BELIEVE IT.
If NO ONE BELIEVED IT, then there would be NOTHING TO DISBELIEVE IN.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:52 am
It is not, my story is the entire point. If it can not be known that my story is false, then it can not be known that your statements are fact.
More baby talk.
Once more Joshy… A-THEISM is a DOCTRINE that DENIES the existence of a god.
A-THEISM is an “ISM”, not a “thought pattern of an imaginary human”.
A-THEISM, is well documented in Classic Antiquity, and in ancient Hindusim.
A-THESIM is a word, with a defintion in both Greek, and the English language.
A-THESIM, is not a word for you to make into whatever you want it to be.
You do not have to believe in a god in order to define one. Another logical fallacy.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:49 am
Why must someone define a god? And why does the definition of a god necissarily involve belief in a god?
Lol. Well first, if no one “defines” a god, there would be no concept of one to “DISBELIEVE” in.
And if someone defined a god, there would by defintion of what a god is, needs to be someone, somewhere, who believes in it.
Otherwise you’d not be defining a god, but merely telling someone a story, presented as a fairy tale.
A childs tale.
Not that some don’t see the idea of a god being a fairy tale anyway, but none theless, you are purporting that someone is presenting the knowledge as a lie, then denouncing it.
Do you see the idiocy of that concept?
If they never believed in a god, then the concept of “disbelief” in one, would not exist.
There would be nothing to “disbelieve in”.
It is not, my story is the entire point. If it can not be known that my story is false, then it can not be known that your statements are fact. That simple. I didn’t post the story because I believed it. That would just be stupid. I am honest. I do not know. I do not know because I can not know. I can not know because the evidence doesn’t exist (no matter how well read you are). And because neither belief is a prerequisite for the other.
That is the logical train of thought that you have yet to break.
You apparently are not a student, or scholar I take it?
You obviously are not well versed in Classic Antiquity, or even proper use of the English language.
A-THEISM, Josh, is a “thing”. A thing that is documented. Well documented.
We know when the first flights took place, from a fixed wing Air Craft. The wright brothers being generally accepted as the first “powered flight”.
Some might argue to earlier ones, but we can safely say, because we read books and such, that no powered flight of a fixed wing aircraft existed prior to the invention of the combustion engine.
But using your logic, your “childs logic”, I could easily say “nuh uh”. Some one may have done it, and landed in a Tarpit, and sunk into the earth….50,000 years ago…. you don’t know!!!
See Josh?
You can’t prove that is wrong. Nor should you need to.
Because it’s baby talk, and we’re not babies.
Why must someone define a god? And why does the definition of a god necissarily involve belief in a god?
I’m not inventing facts. In order to know something you must disprove all alternate theories. My point is that you can not know because you can not discard the opposing possibilities in this regard.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
I offered my story only as a possible alternate theory. One that must be disproved in order to know your claim
No, your “story” doesn’t even need to be addressed.
It’s baby talk.
A-THESIM is a THING Josh.
Not some esoteric concept you can just attribute to whatever fairy tale you choose to dream up.
By your logic, I can say anything equals anything.
It’s baby talk. Nothing more.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:43 am
I haven’t changed the meaning of the word. By whatever definition you use it could still exists prior to belief in God
No Josh. It couldn’t.
First, someone would have to define a god, for their to be a DOCTRINE that denies him.
Second, we are talking about a SPECIFIC THING.
A-THESIM.
A-THEISM began around the 5th Century BCE.
You can’t just invent facts.
I offered my story only as a possible alternate theory. One that must be disproved in order to know your claim.
err, considering… stupid wireless keyboard
True, it coouldn’texist prior to idering God as an option, but that is all that is required, not belief.
I haven’t changed the meaning of the word. By whatever definition you use it could still exists prior to belief in God.
As I was saying Josh, A-THEISM is a Doctrine, that first emerged around the 5th Century CE.
Changing the meaning of the word to whatever you want, is what children do when they get proven wrong on something, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the word for everyone else. Everyone “literate” that is.
A-THEISM refers to a specific thing.
Not some imaginary flowery concept you concocted for the purpose of your arguent.
russ said
muhammed the phony came down with a whole darn book he says God told him to write filled with all kinds of funny stuff about killing those that don’t believe muhammed.
stranger stuff was never made up by a person, leastways that caused so much damage, hurt, pain, suffering, and death in the world
Really?
Then what’s this?
—
And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.
And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
Deuteronomy 3:2-4
—
😐
I think the problem here is those “Christian Comic’s” you guys are reading now.
They only tell you the parts of the bible they want you to hear, and make you think you’re actually learning something.
russ
1, August 26, 2008 at 12:09 am
, whereas a baby that looks like John Edwards is pretty concret as well as a drowned young lady in the back seat of drunken ted kennedy’s car.
So your focus is on a guy who holds no sort of public office and an incident that happened so longer ago you likely weren’t even born?
😐
Must be rough.
We only have to as far back as this year.
russ
1, August 26, 2008 at 12:07 am
cro magnum boy: All moses came away with was a lousy 10 commandments and not one of them telling christians to get vicious with their opposition
Thank you russ for this fine example of neoconservatives lack of knowledge of anything biblical.
See, Moses came away with a little more than the 10 commandments.
Also, since Christ hadn’t even been born at the time of Moses, there were no “Christians” for him to instruct to be vicious with their “opposition”.
However he did lead armies into battle, and considering his victories I can assume he did encourage his followers to be somewhat “vicious” with the opposition.
He also produced the Torah which he received from the hand of God, which makes up the bulk of the scriptures your rabid bloviating “evangelical christians” like to preach from.
Not to mention the “Law of Moses”, which encompassed much, much more than the “10 Commandments”, which you only know about because Cecil B Demile decided to make a movie about them.
Clearly you are like the other evangelical christians I meet in these blogs, not at all educated in scriptures you profess to believe in.
Russ,
Use the old Google feature and you will see that all of those scandals are true. Where have you been hiding the last several years? Not only are those true, they were just a sampling, so just keep living in your imaginary world and you won’t overtax your brain.
rafflaw, funny how most of those “republican” scandals seem to not have any facts behind them, whereas a baby that looks like John Edwards is pretty concret as well as a drowned young lady in the back seat of drunken ted kennedy’s car.