Sacred Aryan Cow

Yes I said that all cultures worshiped it but it was mostly Indo-European cultures that worshiped as I stated.

The Brahmins did eat beef as well as all other Indo-European culture but the cow had to be sacrificed to the gods first before eating it.

>muh White Godess bullshit

This statement is wrong and you have no way of backing ip up by anything that resembles a scientific publication that is not 100 years old.

you just copied and pasted the description of a survive the jive video, no one actually takes that guy seriously

Why are you still yelling? What is with you and Cattle?

Actually it is true, here's the links: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_in_religion_and_mythology
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_society.

1. "INDOEUROPEAN" IS NOT SYNYMOUS WITH "ARYAN".

2. ARYAN CULTURE NECESSARILY ENTAILS A VEGAN LIFESTYLE, OR AT MINIMUM, A VEGAN DIET, THEREFORE, A SOCIOCULTURE THAT CONDONES THE EATING OF FLESH IS NOT AN ARYAN SOCIOCULTURE.

3. YOU ARE MISSING THE "POINT"; THE "POINT" IS THAT THE EATING OF FLESH DID NOT BECOME A PRACTICE IN FORMERLY ARYAN SOCIETIES, UNTIL RACIAL DEGRADATION HAD CAUSED THE ETHICOMORAL, AND SOCIOCULTURAL, CORRUPTION THAT ALLOWED FOR IT.

This is a history thread, not an international thread and I did that for historical purposes.

Yes it is because Aryan actually is synonymous with Indo-European because Aryan means Indo-Iranian and Indo-Iranian is in the Indo-European family and its cultures. Brahmans did eat beef in-till veganism became popular in the 2nd century BCE. The practice of eating flesh has nothing to do with race or cutural things.

>Yes it is because Aryan actually is synonymous with Indo-European

Woah, you managed to be even ore retarded than that guy

YOU ARE IGNORANT, AND CONFUSED.

No, you two are the ones that are ignorant because Aryan has many definitions because Aryan actually mean Indo-European and also noble and also Nazi misinterpretation of the Nordic groups so yes Aryan means Indo-European. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Aryan

and you're a retarded mexican

What a retarded fuck, out.

He's an Arab, not a Mexican.

Fuck you, I do know what I'm talking about. What does Aryan mean to you?

>I do know what I'm talking about

Yu clearly don't

>What does Aryan mean to you?

Aryan is a sub branch of Indoeuropean spoken by Iranians and Indians, not all Indoeuropeans are Aryans, only a few are and they're located in the Middle East and India.

This is what Aryan means, not to just me but to anyone who knows what he's talking about.

Yes they are and work on your grammar.

>Says the one who knows everything.

Yes they are what?

You can't even put a coherent sentence together and you're telling me to work on my grammar?

Can we permaban this fag?

Aryans are Indo-Europeans, it a fact. It do know how to put a coherent sentence together.

Can we permanently ban this faggot?

Can you kill yourself?
Aryans is not a term for Indoeuropeans, it is used to refer to Indo-Aryans which is a branch of Indoeuropean speakers.

>Implying that Indo-European does not mean Aryan when it does

Definition of Aryan- Indo-European or speakers of an Indo-European language.

Why don't we stop talking this and shut the fuck up you ignorant faggot.

Btfo by

Stop posting.

I have a low toleration towards stupidity mixed with ignorance and arrogance.

You do realize that the Indo-Aryans were from Ukraine and traveled to India and Iran meaning that the Indo-Aryans from Europe and spread across Asia.

>Anglo-Saxon (Hengest and Horsa) origin myths
Hengest and Horsa were two real Saxon chieftains, not myths
Also, there's no such thing as an Anglo-Saxon origin myth, they were a mixture of Germanic tribes coming to England and they knew that

You do realize that indo Aryan only refers to the Indoeuropean groups of Asia, not those of Europe?

No Indoeuropean population in Europe referred to themselves as "Aryan", neither did those in Anatolia to be precise.

Hence why Indoaryan only refers only to those populations who lived in Iran, Afghanistan and India,

I also hope you do realize that while Proto Indoeuropean was spoken by people living in Eastern Ukraine/The Northen Caucasus region, later Indoeuropean speaking populations were always a mix of those PIE speakers + the native populations whom they mixed with, hence why Iberians and Iranians are really distant genetically

The Indo-Aryans are a branch of the Indo-Europeans and they all come from Ukraine. They migrated from Europe into India and crossbreed with the Dravidians or the natives of India. Please stop posting. I have zero tolerance for ignorant people like you.

mushrooms

>ice cream is a type of food
>thus food = icecream

who the fuck are you

Perhaps your post would be more easy to read if you didn't abuse caps lock in such an obnoxious way

Aryan is Iranian. Indo-Euro refers to a language family not an ethnicity

Makes sense OP.

The region that these supposed "proto-indo europeans" came from was a starting point for animal husbandry to spread. That's precisely what made that group of humans more successful. Eventually they would spread and replace/absorb the local inhabitants bringing their technology, in this case tending animals. This is in contrast to the agricultural groups and the hunter-gatherer groups. It's not surprising that they might have similar myths.

Interesting though that a major story in the bible is how the Jews denied God and started worshiping a golden calf, an obvious stab at IE mythology. Especially because Judaism is semetic, and not IE.

It goes without saying that lactose tolerance and eventually horses would be huge factors in survival and proliferation of these people. Which is honestly pretty gross and biologically strange for humans to do. I don't know any other animal that drinks another animal's milk.

...

cats

What a retarded fuck.

People spoke Proto Indoeuropean in Ukraine, Indo-Aryan languages branched off later.

It's like saying Spanish are straight out from Ukraine because they speak a Romance language which is Indoeuropean.

Your brain simply can't process such a simple concept, you're a lost cause.

>The region that these supposed "proto-indo europeans" came from was a starting point for animal husbandry to spread.

Wrong.

Animal husbandry started in the Near East and spread from there.

Near Easterners in Anatolia, the Levant and Iran tamed cows, sheeps, goats, pigs and donkeys.

The only thing Protoindoeuropean people tame first were horses, and even that is debated.

>the cow is the most important and sacred of animals
>in the current year

Do you have a source that claims that the Aryans originated in Ukraine?

Hindus consider the cow to be sacred. Other major religions don't have any sacred animal.

And to add: your claim stems from the Kurgan hypothesis. The problem is that this model refers to Indo-Europeans, but you're making a huge leap by claiming that these people are Aryans. The only people claiming this are far right sites like Stormfront, so you probably got this jewel of fake news from /pol/?

Its not being abused, at first it was thought that Aryan was a self designation synonymous with Proto-Indo-European. it was later discovered only Iranians were calling themselves that. I personally still use it when I don't feel like typing out pie and to trigger people on message boards

...Like you.

>The most frequent symbol which they [Vedic Indians and Avestan Iranians] have in common in their religious literature is that of the cow, the animal which for countless generations
had been the main source of their livelihood and comfort; and this symbol has the deepest significance for both peoples.

>as with Mithra, the link was through Raman's epithet, since as god of the air Vayu also possessed "good pastures", the great spaces of sky in which the clouds live, the celestial "cows" whose milk is the rain.

>When a libation of milk is made ... it is not something inanimate that is offered up, but the cow itself, in its liquid essence, its sap, its fertility." The same approach is found in Iran.

>The cow was to them what the sheep was to the Israelites; and those who come to the Gathas with a Christian background need to transpose the imagery of cattle and herdsman into the more familiar one of sheep and the good shepherd in order to appreciate its religious impact. The Gathic imagery appears even more complex, however, than the Biblical metaphors. To Zoroaster, as to the Vedic poets, 78 the maternal, mild, beneficent cow represented the "good" animal creation upon which man's life depended; and it was also, it seems, a symbol of goodness suffering in this world from evil-as the cattle of Central Asia suffered from marauders,
driven from their green pastures along dusty ways to death. As a symbol
of what is beneficent (spanta) and in accord with asa the cow also represents the beneficent and just man, and the herd of cattle the community
of the righteous (like the "flock" of Judaeo-Christian tradition).

Through the development ofthis image the righteous man in general may be termed a "herdsman" (vastrya). Thus it is asked: "How, in accordance with Asa. shall he, the herdsman, upright in deeds, obtain the cow... ?" (Y. 5r.5). "How, 0 Mazda, is he to secure the luck-bringing cow, he who desires it, provided with pasturage, to be his?" (Y. 50.2). This image admirably symbolises and summarises the Zoroastrian ethic. The actual vastrya must care for soil and water and plants, for the sake of his animals. He must therefore tend and conserve the good creations of Armaiti, Haurvatat and
Amer.~tat, as well as that of Vohu Manah himself. He cherishes rather than destroys, and needs patience and self-discipline, putting sloth behind him. He also needs courage to guard his charges against wild beasts and cattlethieves, keeping them safe in their pastures. He is in fact a "good shepherd" expressed in terms of a different culture, and thus furnishes a metaphor for the moral man.

thanks for bringing this up. Could you look into fire worship as a facet of old Indo-European religion?

Reminder that the Vestal Virgins were tasked with attending to the sacred fire. Could this have any possible connection to the Burned House Horizon?

Mary Boyce. A History of Zoroastrianism: The Early Period.

>even that is debated

No, it's not even close to an uncertain issue. Where you're actually incorrect is when you assume it was proto-Indo-Europeans who domesticated horses.

Those people were strictly Indo-European. That's how recent modern horses are.

>be proto-indo-european
>worship the cow
>be modern european
>prep the bull
what went wrong