use_your_brain
Active Member
For Hindu, Siva, Visnu and Brahma are not mythology. Look, how you affirm my previous assertion. You justify your idea, and invalidate others.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Each religion has some truth?
- Thread starter Theweirdtophat
- Start date
use_your_brain
Active Member
you do mean Buddhism is true, and Islam is wrong. right?
Religions are not so much "true" as they may be useful or succesfull.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
No, whatever be my view, I do not consider the view of other Hindus to be wrong. Hinduism does not like to shackle its adherents. They rightfully can have different views. The RigVedic line "Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti' (the truth is one but good people describe it variously) is our guide. I am not a typical Hindu.
use_your_brain
Active Member
you do mean Islam is not a useful and successful religion, but Buddhism is, right?
Not in quite those absolute, blunt sense.
I do think Islam and Christianity are much too God-centered for anyone's good. But that does not make them so much "wrong" as biased and of dubious value for atheists and other non-believers.
Evaluating religions according to how "true" they might be is not a very useful exercise, in my opinion. Religious truth is attained on an individual level by the wisdom and discernment of each practicioner, not by the written doctrine.
use_your_brain
Active Member
but you say they worship the mythological idols. while they d believe their Gods are not the mythological figures. They think their Gods are true exist. and you think oppositely. you can't be both true.
use_your_brain
Active Member
Your criteria on the truth is how far the individual practitioner gains the wisdom and discernment. As per your opinion, God is not useful to be taken in to account in exercising the truth. meanwhile Islam and Christians say oppositely, their religion oblige them to focus on the deity as the most centered core teaching.
In this case you think you are righter than both religion Islam and Christianity that rely on the God instead of the way you obtain the wisdom.
I label it as the feeling to be true over others.
use_your_brain
Active Member
and you think you are true to not worship the such mythological idols/figures, right?
I would prefer to call it "usefulness" instead of truth, but close enough.
Correct.
Most, but not all Christians do in fact understand their religion to demand a belief in Ibrahim's God. Even among those, there are various and significant disagreements about what the consequences of that belief would be. Islam is not all that different in that respect, although it does emphasize the need for belief even more.
That, to me, shows that such a belief is far less necessary and far less meaningful than either religion likes to admit. They are not alone, either; the Seicho-No-Ie and the Bahai, among others, also greatly overvalue belief in a deity. Their priviliege, I suppose - but that does not make their belief in such a need correct.
I agree.
I am in basic agreement with your opinions. I believe all religions (perhaps baring a few 'out there' ones) have a common source and the teaching of brotherly love that brings it all back to One.
Don't you think it is important to make it clear which ones are those "out there"? And doesn't it somewhat empty the proposal once we do point them out?
No, they are too minor to be worthy of much notice. There will always be a few 'out there' people and they are not of much concern to me. I was commenting on all the major religious traditions of the world.
We will have to agree to disagree, then.
I'm not clear but curious still. On which of the points discussed must we disagree on? The general OP topic? The importance of 'out there' people?
I think it is easy to make up a religion that has truths in it. For instance, I can write a holy book that states that 2+2=4, easily.
But if you are referring to supernatural claims. Then no. They just might agree on something which is ultimately wrong. They must necessarily agree on the existence of the supernatural. Without introducing it, it would make no sense to create a new religion to start with.
Ciao
- viole
I find it a fairly direct contradiction to attempt to celebrate an "universal" truth all the while needing to weed out those "minor", "undeserving" counter-examples as a preliminary.
OK, now I at least understand. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. That's to be expected with us.
