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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Now there is a perfect thing - a religion based on the truth"
Nobody is perfect - no matter what religion.
Now there is a perfect thing - a religion based on the truth.
Yes, the Muslims were there much before the Mughal empire.They conquered India half a millennium before the Mughal Empire
Nice young man. Not sure if he'll be back though. It can be quite the mental challenge, that shift of paradigms. There's often some rather hard-wired stuff in the subconscious mind.I recognize my self in your story of the person seeking
Yes it take time and effort to begin a new journey within a new faith
Similarly for me.
Sometimes better not to attempt it. When friends and I got into yoga and meditation 45 years ago (we were just kids) one friend was a strong Catholic. She stayed with it for about 4 months, but then backed off because she knew it would just cause confusion. Nobody should be in the business of causing confusion. That's a major reason why I'm so against proselytising.Yes it take time and effort to begin a new journey within a new faith
I disagree entirely. People fight over religion for one very important reason -- if there are other religions, and they are accepted by many, many people, then that is an existential threat to the notion that yours is the only "true religion." This is an intolerable notion to many people.
"Buddhist have an on going religious war on their own"There are no war between Hindus and Buddhists - if it happened maybe its a long time ago
However, this is what I found out
Revista de Estudos da Religiãosetembro / 2007 / pp. 157-164ISSN 1677-1222From which moment / period in time the Buddhist-Hindu encounter became manifest and what were the geographical and socio-cultural circumstances under which early encounters occurred?When emperor Ashoka (3rd century BCE) became a powerful patron of Buddhism, he prohibited the killing of animals. This was a severe blow against Brahmanism, because theritual sacrifice of animals was prescribed in the Vedas and formed a major part of the Brahmins’ livelihood. This made it very clear to the Brahmins that a state governed by Buddhists principles would hardly leave any space for them. Buddhism was now perceived not only as an intellectual rival but as a serious threat. And, under Ashoka – with his royal support – Buddhism rapidly spread within and outside the borders of his empire. Hence it is not surprising that after Ashoka’s Maurya dynasty (2nd century BCE) we hear of fierce persecutions of Buddhism in India, inspired by Brahmanical circles.
https://www.pucsp.br/rever/rv3_2007/f_usarski2_en.pdf
Maybe I was misunderstood in this statement.
Which should have been Buddhist have an on going religious war on their own
and the Hindus have an on going religious war on their own too
And to clarify things, I did not use "each other" or "against each other"
"Hence it is not surprising that after Ashoka’s Maurya dynasty (2nd century BCE) we hear of fierce persecutions of Buddhism in India,inspired by Brahmanical circles.".There are no war between Hindus and Buddhists - if it happened maybe its a long time ago
However, this is what I found out
Revista de Estudos da Religiãosetembro / 2007 / pp. 157-164ISSN 1677-1222From which moment / period in time the Buddhist-Hindu encounter became manifest and what were the geographical and socio-cultural circumstances under which early encounters occurred?When emperor Ashoka (3rd century BCE) became a powerful patron of Buddhism, he prohibited the killing of animals. This was a severe blow against Brahmanism, because theritual sacrifice of animals was prescribed in the Vedas and formed a major part of the Brahmins’ livelihood. This made it very clear to the Brahmins that a state governed by Buddhists principles would hardly leave any space for them. Buddhism was now perceived not only as an intellectual rival but as a serious threat. And, under Ashoka – with his royal support – Buddhism rapidly spread within and outside the borders of his empire. Hence it is not surprising that after Ashoka’s Maurya dynasty (2nd century BCE) we hear of fierce persecutions of Buddhism in India, inspired by Brahmanical circles.
Maybe I was misunderstood in this statement.
Which should have been Buddhist have an on going religious war on their own
and the Hindus have an on going religious war on their own too
And to clarify things, I did not use "each other" or "against each other"
"Discussing religion is not fightingDiscussing religion is not fighting
Debating religion is not fighting
Talking is not fighting
However, maybe this one is.....
We can talk about religion provided no one pulls a gun or something
Because when that happens, it does not make sense.
"But for me, I welcome a person who says my religion is wrong.But for me, I welcome a person who says my religion is wrong.
Because if my religion is wrong and someone points out that it is fake
I wouldn't want to stay any minute longer
To stay would mean I would be wasting my time, energy and money
over a fake religion.
I took on a religion because it is my insurance policy
My assurance with God that on the day when He orders
His Son back, I will be saved
And while this world keeps on turning, I would pray
without doubting, all my problems to God and ask for the things that I need
in the name of His Son, my Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ
Agree with you on this
