V
VociMike
Guest
I still want to know, is there any branch or sect of Hinduism that claims that what they teach and practice is no better, has no more truth, than any other religion?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Neil_LA
Guest
Not knowing all sects of Hinduism, I am unable to give a definitive answer to that question.I still want to know, is there any branch or sect of Hinduism that claims that what they teach and practice is no better, has no more truth, than any other religion?
My understanding would be that some sects would say that they alone have the truth, while others would say that they have the fullness of truth while allowing room for other sects/religions to also have the fulness of truth.
I think that your question comes from a frame of reference that doesn’t quite encompass the issue.
I believe that some sects would say that if one wants to learn to realate to God in the way that they teach, then they would contain the fulness of truth, meaning the fulness of what one needs to know God in the way that they teach about him.
I believe also that the same people would say that there are other ways to relate to God other than what they teach and they would admit that if one wants to learn about know to know God in a way other than what they teach, they could admit that the other way is just as valid and equal and full an approach.
Does that make sence?
This is my main objection with Christianity. Each sect says that they alone have the correct way to approach God and that all other ways are either incorrect or mistaken.
I would be more than happy to drop my criticism of Chritanity and Catholicsm if they could say “We have one way to approach God. God is unlimited and so if you want to apporach God in another way than how we suggest, that is ok.”
Christianity can’t even admit that the various sects within its own tradition can validly have other ways of approching God within the frame of reference that Jesus showed.
N
Neil_LA
Guest
Actually Buddhism (at least certain ascpects of Mahayana Buddhism) say that there are “84,000 Dharma Gateways” which means that the various Buddhas (fully enlightened being -I’m not going to engage in debate about what “enlightened” is)I don’t believe this. I don’t believe “many world religions” don’t claim to have more truth than the others. I think the claim you put forth is really no more than “conventional wisdom”, which is usually not. It’s a claim who’s sole purpose is actually to beat up on Christianity.
Does Buddahism deny it?
out of their infinite compassion for living beings, show unlimited ways of gaining wisdom and enlightenment depending on the different temprements of said living beings.
One size does not fit all. All of the various approaches to Dharma are equally valid. Using that reasoning one could say, from a Buddhistic perspective that Jesus was able to devise yet another way for living beings to achieve the goal.
Again, I am not going to debate what the “goal” is in Buddhism versus what the “goal” is in Catholicism.
The question was “Does Buddhism deny that it has a more complete truth than any other religion.” One could say yes because Buddhism says that the Buddha appears in vairous forms and teaches various paths as “expedient means.”
A short text that talks about this is the “Universal Door Chapter of Avalokiteshwara Bodhisattva” in the “Lotus Sutra”
L
lynnareyno
Guest
As posted by Neil LA:
Also, most of the earliest settlers of America were political not religious…claiming land for the Queen/state.etc. It was imperialism at play which is another topic. Please cite evidence of violence at the hands of Christian missionaries.
PEACE AND LOVE
Abrahamic religions each say that they contain the “fullness of truth” and no else does:
Judaim = The “Chosen” People (as opposed to the rest of humanity)
Christianity = God’s One and Only Incarnation on Earth
So therefore you consider Judaism and Islam also arrogant along with Christianity?Islam = The Complete and Final Revalation of God to Humanity
Also, most of the earliest settlers of America were political not religious…claiming land for the Queen/state.etc. It was imperialism at play which is another topic. Please cite evidence of violence at the hands of Christian missionaries.
PEACE AND LOVE
N
Namesake
Guest
I suppose the point is that any religion that claims exclusive truth is arrogant.As posted by Neil LA:
So therefore you consider Judaism and Islam also arrogant along with Christianity?
Also, most of the earliest settlers of America were political not religious…claiming land for the Queen/state.etc. It was imperialism at play which is another topic. Please cite evidence of violence at the hands of Christian missionaries.
PEACE AND LOVE
The earliest settlers of this country were not in any way imperialistic and I would sure hope that most informed people would well understand that concept. They were in fact escaping an imperialistic government to hopefully find a more free way of life, absent imperialism.
N
Neil_LA
Guest
For a short description of the violence and contempt with which the Catholic Spaniards had toward the Mesoamericans I suggest you read “A Handbook on Guadalupe” by the Fransican Friars of the Immaculate.As posted by Neil LA:
So therefore you consider Judaism and Islam also arrogant along with Christianity?
Also, most of the earliest settlers of America were political not religious…claiming land for the Queen/state.etc. It was imperialism at play which is another topic. Please cite evidence of violence at the hands of Christian missionaries.
PEACE AND LOVE
As to if I consider Judaism and Islam as “arrogant” as Christianity,
Judaism, I would generally say no because they don’t evangelize and attempt to convert the world.
Islam, most definitely. Islam and Christianity are the greatest threats to world peace and stabilty at work today.
L
lynnareyno
Guest
Neil LA
For a short description of the violence and contempt with which the Catholic Spaniards had toward the Mesoamericans I suggest you read “A Handbook on Guadalupe” by the Fransican Friars of the Immaculate. Thanks for info, I will look into it. Are they Spaniards who are Catholic or are they Catholic missionaries?
As to if I consider Judaism and Islam as “arrogant” as Christianity,
Judaism, I would generally say no because they don’t evangelize and attempt to convert the world.
PEACE AND LOVEIslam, most definitely. Islam and Christianity are the greatest threats to world peace and stabilty at work today. Well I agree with 50% of that statement. My first thought is of the Catholic Church through the office of the Pope calling for peace throughout the world over and over again, chastising all countries to be fair and just to all it’s citizens and for human rights. I am hard pressed off the top of my head to think of a place where Catholics are disrupting peace and stability. I’d appreciate information regarding that…
N
Neil_LA
Guest
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiWhy do Christians assume that the Bible is the only valid scripture and other scriptures revealed by God thoughout the ages have no intrinsic value?
It is a very valid question; the CatholicsProtestants should answer it reasonably and rationally for a Hindu member who is welcome here.
We Ahmadi peaceful Muslims do believe that GodAllahYHWH sent his MessengerGuides to every nation/region of the world; and with them a message/book was also sent to them. It is another thing if the followers of such DivineGuides could preserve the message of GodAllahYHWH or not; that has to be seen on merit. Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad etc were all MessengersProphets from GodAllahYHWH. In the origin the books revealed were also truthful till such time the message got diluted.
Thanks
N
Neil_LA
Guest
So are you in fact saying that all “messages” of all “prophets” except Mohammed (SAWS) and the Quaran have been “diluted” or corrupted? This is an extemely offensive thing to say and is no better than the claims made by Christians.Hi
It is a very valid question; the CatholicsProtestants should answer it reasonably and rationally for a Hindu member who is welcome here.
We Ahmadi peaceful Muslims do believe that GodAllahYHWH sent his MessengerGuides to every nation/region of the world; and with them a message/book was also sent to them. It is another thing if the followers of such DivineGuides could preserve the message of GodAllahYHWH or not; that has to be seen on merit. Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad etc were all MessengersProphets from GodAllahYHWH. In the origin the books revealed were also truthful till such time the message got diluted.
Thanks
See…this is what I’ve been saying. Each Abrahamic religion (each sect within each Abrahamic religion) says it alone has the “true undiluted” revalation from God.
Don’t y’all see how foolish and childish all this bickering is? Can’t we just accept that God is amazing and maybe all revalations from God are good and true?
When is the fighting going to stop?
And besides, your position is ignorant, because neither Hinduism nor Buddhism have “a” book. The Vedic canon is vast and the Buddhist Tripitaka is equally volumious.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taisho_Tripitaka
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_scripture
I suggest you do your homework.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
It doesn’t “defend itself” from those who are wrong about it. It tries to help them to underdstand where they are incorrect about it.Please accept my heartfelt greetings.
I am Hindu, but I have some questions about Christianity.
If Christianity is the “true faith” then why has it spent so much time and effort over the years defending itself for “heresies” and divergent views?
Catholic Christianity is simply a small set of truths with which one is convinced is true or not, which has been revealed to ALL of mankind by the witness of a few persons.It seems to me that if it is the true faith, it would be self-evident and would not need humans to defend it. God Himself would defend it.
Those who believe that don’t “DEFEND” their faith. They merely witness to their faith in those facts.
God “defends” our faith by giving us reasons, via graces, for believing what we believe.
All people (individuals) try to show other people why the things they believe are believable when those beliefs are (in any way) questioned.To me it seems that Christians of all different sects are always very defensive about their faith and need to prove to the world that it is the “true faith” and need to convert “unbelievers” even though so-called “unbelievers” might indeed have a vital spirituality and are actually happy with it.
Christians seem a bit “pushy” about telling other people the wonders that they’ve found in Christianity because we’ve been told that it is good to share good things. This is called charity.
All people do this, and it is in fact the same action as the ubiquitous desire of all people to help others as they’ve been helped (helped to see truths).
Christians believe that God has worked in a general way to reveal Himself by “natural law”, from which all people worldwide (universe-wide?) create “forces” and “personifications” which populate their beliefs about “God-stuff”, thereby creating their various religions.Why do Christians assume that the Bible is the only valid scripture and other scriptures revealed by God thoughout the ages have no intrinsic value?
Christians believe that God has created a “point source” of most fully informed revelation of His “goal” which He has given us over time.
The “movement” of that source forms the “line” which is Adam to Noah to Abram/Abraham to David to Jesus to “The Church” (which in reality is all “The Church”).
That other people would find that they are not “on the line” is “objectionable” and annoying is understandable. But when they say that they MUST be as equally “priveledged” as ANY other people as regards “God-stuff” they are saying the spiritual equivalent of, “ALL individuals should be equally beautiful, talented and RICH, or I shall be annoyed!”
If you, as a hindu, or anyone as a whatever else, don’t feel that you’ve got “THE” fullness of the truth, but only “A” fullness of the truth equally as much as anyone else, could your “modesty” in your claim be, in fact, justifiably “modest” in relation to what we have as Christians?
Maybe I’m just ignorant. I admit that I haven’t been to university or had any formal “higher” education other than my own studies.
Please forgive my lack of understanding.
Why is it “unacceptable” that ONE LINE OF PEOPLE, just as one individual person in ANY society, be priveledged to recieve the most full exposure of revelation directly from God?I have brought these questions up previously and started a rather contentious debate. Its is my intention to try to understand and be respectful
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
So, you’re more interested in “seeing the fighting stop” than the truth?See…this is what I’ve been saying. Each Abrahamic religion (each sect within each Abrahamic religion) says it alone has the “true undiluted” revalation from God.
Don’t y’all see how foolish and childish all this bickering is? Can’t we just accept that God is amazing and maybe all revalations from God are good and true?
When is the fighting going to stop?
That is called a false peace.
I agree (as does the Church) that ALL actual revelations of God, both those given via the gift of “natural law” and otherwise, are ACTUALLY good and true!
But both the “natural law” manifestations of God’s truth and goodness and His direct revelations (biblical scripture and traditions) are very prone to the human weakness of misinterpretation. Who is to decide what is the correct interpretation?
Thus, the necessity of The Church.
P
planten
Guest
**Greetings. I am a Muslim and Islam teaches that knowledge (revelation) was given to all nations. Prophets (saints) were sent to all nations. Perhaps the Jews and christians do not believe in that basic principle. They should tell by their logic whether this news is correct or wrong.Hi and Thank You
Well…I guess that the Law of Non-contradiction is one of the things where we diverge our views.
If God created the Laws, then He is perfectly free to diverge from His laws at any time He wishes.
Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa was once discussing a simmilar question with one of his disciples.
The story goes something like this: (This is my understanding of the incident - the actual story is available from the “Sri Sri Ramakrishna Lilaprasanga” by Swami Saradananda available in traslation as “Ramakrishna the Great Master” from the Ramakrishna Math Chennai)
Ramakrishna said that God is free to do whatever He pleases and the devotee asked for him (Ramakrishna) to prove this.
Ramakrishna asked if one could have a red rose bloom on the same branch of a white rose bush as a white rose.
The devotee said that this was impossible (remember this was the 19th century)
Ramakrishna then prayed to God and the next morning found a red rose and a white rose blooming together.
God is infinitely free and is not bound by any laws
God told the names of some prophets and did not tell the names of some others. There were thousands of them. Siri Ram and Krishna are sure to be counted among the prophets or sincere saints of God. Their prayers are accepted more than the other people. They have been the symbol of righteousness and guidance for the people. No doubt.
So, the question needs to be tackled is “Did God send any prophets in the Non-Israeli or non-christian people?” That needs to be answered. Thanks.**
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
The Church states that all people were given “natural law”, and it’s rather obvious that some individuals within each people (nation/people) were better at “hearing” said natural law than others, and that these people could be called “prophets”, or wise-people, or holy-people, or a variety of like designations.**Greetings. I am a Muslim and Islam teaches that knowledge (revelation) was given to all nations. Prophets (saints) were sent to all nations. Perhaps the Jews and christians do not believe in that basic principle. They should tell by their logic whether this news is correct or wrong.
God told the names of some prophets and did not tell the names of some others. There were thousands of them. Siri Ram and Krishna are sure to be counted among the prophets or sincere saints of God. Their prayers are accepted more than the other people. They have been the symbol of righteousness and guidance for the people. No doubt.
So, the question needs to be tackled is “Did God send any prophets in the Non-Israeli or non-christian people?” That needs to be answered. Thanks.**
But God chose ONE line of people to carry the most full deposit of His truth, which culminates in the Church.
No one is obliged to believe that. It would do everyone well TO believe that, but that not everyone does is the reason that history is ongoing and yet unterminated.
For those who don’t believe that ANY ONE LINE of people could possibly be the God chosen single source of the most full deposit of revelation, why believe in God at all if that rather sensible arrangement of promulgating His wisdom to all of mankind us “unacceptable”?
S
Sam_777
Guest
No Prophets (saints) were NOT sent to all nations, read this from Quran:**Prophets (saints) were sent to all nations. **
“Had it been Our Will, We could have sent a warner to every centre of population.” (Quran 25:51).
F
Figaro_Jones
Guest
This is news, that Christians want to make converts?
Seems to me that Vivekananda’s mission to the US was undertaken with some of that same spirit. Don’t get me wrong, I like Vivekananda, but much of his speaking was devoted to preaching the wisdom of Vedanta and the comparative narrowness of Christianity. Yes, Ramakrishna (and Vivekananda) preached that all religions lead to the same goal, but the further one reads into Vedanta, the more clearly one sees that they regard their worldview as better than most others. A bit of arrogance all around, I say.
F
Figaro_Jones
Guest
Oh. I thought you were saying:Yes…the Gita does take place on a battlefield.
I don’t disagree that Jesus and Krishna were both fighting against Adharma.
What I do disagree with is the claim that a particular Christian sect has a monopoly on the complete fullness of ultimate reality and that ultimate reality exists in no other place.
If one looks at the facts, one would say that Jesus is the prince of war and hatred.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiI just do not accept that the Bible and the Catholic Church has the fulness of truth…
I agree with you.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiTo say that other religious teachings sent by God are incorrect and “my belief” is the only truth is neither loving God nor loving one’s neighbor.
You are right there.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiHaving been Christian for 60 years I have come to understand your position. Christianity is very arrogant in that Christians are indoctrinated with the dogmatic idea that it is the only way, the only truth. After studying religions for many years I conclude that there is no one way regardless of what the Bible says.
It would be much better in my opinion for Christians to be more accepting of other religions. But that can’t happen because of what the Bible says, and according to Catholicism, that there is only one way. I find that incredibly arrogant and I don’t believe it. I can’t believe that a loving and merciful God would allow so many people on Earth to be such good, moral, and kind people yet be so wrong and therefore doomed to eternal damnation. That simply defies rational thinking.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree that the Church is a deceiver, just that Christians are themselves deceived. I admit that those might very well be the same thing though.
I agree with you Neil.
I appreciate and agree with most of the contents of your post.
Thanks
paarsurrey.wordpress.com/
- Status
- Not open for further replies.