• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

ahriman (myth) request/debunk

Dude don't bump that often, wait at least half a day between bumps. Also, Ahriman is a Persian mythological figure, so idk how many "scans" you'll get.
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
"Ahriman is nothing whatsoever"

-Avesta (Sacred Text Ahriman is in)
proof that it actually says that? and what is it in context?
 
He sourced the quote. If you still want to dispute that, you now have to present evidence that that is never said in the Avesta. With control F, it shouldn't take too long to confirm or deny.
 
I gave you the source. Avesta.

Also, he's Ahura Mazda's equal, who created conceptual embodiments.

"Thirty-three Ameshaspands and their Creator Ahura Mazda are victorious and holy"
 
Wokistan said:
He sourced the quote. If you still want to dispute that, you now have to present evidence that that is never said in the Avesta. With control F, it shouldn't take too long to confirm or deny.
just did and its ridiculously out of context
 
"The Creator , the keeper of the world , (is) omnipotent and omniscient , and the Nourisher of all, and the producer , and the Doer of meritorious deeds and overseer . Ahriman is nothing whatsoever (and is) ignorant , and cannot do anything"

even if u think it's in context, nigh-omniscience has to go. the "nothing wHATSOEVER" is refering to his stature as a god and it continues to say he's ignorant and can't do anything
 
Ignorant refers to lack of wisdom in this context. In terms of actual planning and the like he's definitely nigh omniscient.

"Nothing whatsoever is refering to his stature as a god"

What?
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
Ignorant refers to lack of wisdom in this context. In terms of actual planning and the like he's definitely nigh omniscient.
citation needed
 
but still, nonexistent has to go. it's just comparing the creator's stature as a god to ahriman. it's essentially saying dat ahriman is nothing compred to the creator
 
...What? Not only do I have no idea how you are getting that, but Ahura views Ahriman as a genuine threat. The two are brothers, and equals.
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
Makes no sense a guy who is as intellegent as the literal source of wisdom wouldn't be nigh omniscient
not my fault mythology doesn't treat him like that
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
...What? Not only do I have no idea how you are getting that, but Ahura views Ahriman as a genuine threat. The two are brothers, and equals.
I'll have to ask for quotes on that. I can't do Control F, I'm on mobile.
 
I agree Nonexistence Physiology is unfounded here, and should definitely go, seeing the actual context of the phrase.
 
Ultima Reality said:
I agree Nonexistence Physiology is unfounded here, and should definitely go, seeing the actual context of the phrase
Merci Beaucoup
 
Ultima Reality said:
I agree Nonexistence Physiology is unfounded here, and should definitely go, seeing the actual context of the phrase
Ahriman being an abstract concept is legit though, as he at least embodies destruction, as is his conceptual manipulation.
 
Ahriman being an abstract concept is legit though, as he at least embodies destruction, as is his conceptual manipulation.

That has nothing to do with anything.
 
Ahriman being an abstract concept is legit though, as he at least embodies destruction, as is his conceptual manipulation.

citation needed
 
I mean, Zach can still highlight an important area and the context and send it as screenshots. If the entire scripture is somehow relevant as context, he should probably make an explanation blog or something.
 
how many people have to agree with me to get something removed?

a discuss mod already agrees
 
SSBXeno573 said:
how many people have to agree with me to get something removed?

a discuss mod already agrees
Pretty sure a knowledgeable member has to agree before this can be changed.
 
Pretty sure a knowledgeable member has to agree before this can be changed.

but what if a knowledgeable member don't agree but everyone else agree? (I don't mean in this thread I mean in general)
 
Depends, though generally if a knowledgeable member disagrees for actual reasons they can manage to convince a staff member or some other detractors that they're correct.
 
You can use the Knowledgeable Members List to find people who are well-versed in mythology, and ask them to comment here.

So far I am leaning towards agreeing with Ultima though.
 
I am unsure what to think of nonexistence, are there any other similar quotes about Ahriman's nature?
 
Back
Top