The One True Religion

[Roguish]

Do you mean Christianity?

Not in the limited sense of the word "Christianity", no.
But the OTR does subsume whatever is authentic in Christianity -- which is much.

Is there a 1-800 number I can call?

I don't understand.

if one seeks the Real Truth, at some point one must be brave enough to venture into undiscovered country for there is always more Truth waiting to be Discovered.

Yes, though as a nit-pick I must say I don't like the term "Real Truth".
Truth is never "real", it is actual, meaning it works, meaning it transforms.
The word real and the associated noun reality don't connote that.
Facts are real -- and sterile, meaning they do not bring forth life; truth does.

I have found no religion that really understands God at all. Religions are mankind's attempt to understand God. Though there is some goodness in all religions, I find them lacking for they reflect more of mankind than they do of God.

I understand what you're saying,
but I use the term "religion" in a stricter sense:
the re-binding, which is what religion means.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, I am completely satisfied with my religion and am pleased that it does not have any issue at all with science, not even with Relativity, Chaos, Uncertainty, Probability, or Quantum Mechanics.

. . . and you believe it is the One and Only True Reigion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not in the limited sense of the word "Christianity", no.
But the OTR does subsume whatever is authentic in Christianity -- which is much.



I don't understand.



Yes, though as a nit-pick I must say I don't like the term "Real Truth".
Truth is never "real", it is actual, meaning it works, meaning it transforms.
The word real and the associated noun reality don't connote that.
Facts are real -- and sterile, meaning they do not bring forth life; truth does.



I understand what you're saying,
but I use the term "religion" in a stricter sense:
the re-binding, which is what religion means.

Clear as mud with many disjoint avoidance statements

Please define your view of the 'One True Religion' without the 'Dog and Pony show' routine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and you believe it is the One and Only True Religion.

As you know we do not have the exact equivalent of religion in Hinduism. It is Pantha (The Way), Mata (Opinion), Sampradaya (Sect). Advaita is a Mata (Opinion) that only one entity exists in the universe, and all that we perceive (or otherwise) is a form of that entity with absolutely no exception. Be it Humans, animals, vegetation, inanimate substances and even that which we do not consider as substance (heat, light, electricity). As for our behavior in society, that is listed as 'Dharma' (Duties and righteous behavior). 'Dharma' is common to all adherents of Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no compulsion to worship any particular God or Goddess in Hinduism or not to worship any. No compulsion o believe in any particular Pantha, Mata or Sampradaya. Hinduism is a free-form religion. It does not fetter its adherents in any way.

 

[ppp]

There is no compulsion to worship any particular God or Goddess in Hinduism or not to worship any. No compulsion o believe in any particular Pantha, Mata or Sampradaya. Hinduism is a free-form religion. It does not fetter its adherents in any way.

I have friend who are no longer Hindu and are, according to them, disparaged and shunned because of it. They tell me that this is common in India. I have no first hand knowledge.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't know about your friends, also as to what they subscribed in Hinduism. Perhaps the things were not clarified to them properly. However, it is no problem. If they was not satisfied with what they got, they are welcome to seek satisfaction elsewhere. There are views that would not be acceptable to the Hindu majority. My view also is one of them - a practicing Hindu and strong atheist. People say it is contradictory, I say it is orthodox.

 

[Roguish]

Hinduism is a free-form religion. It does not fetter its adherents in any way.

There are views that would not be acceptable to the Hindu majority. My view also is one of them - a practicing Hindu and strong atheist. People say it is contradictory, I say it is orthodox.

You're changing the meaning of the term "Hinduism" to include interpretations that -- by your own admission -- the majority of Hindus do reject as "not acceptable" (your term) and "contradictory" (also your term). Your insistence that Hinduism is a "free form religion" really only pertains to Hinduism as redefined by you, not to Hinduism as understood by the majority of its adherents. Even any non-Indian who's been to India senses that: Hinduism clearly is very theist, and the vast majority of its adherents believe firmly in theistic worship. Atheist reinterpretations such as yours are alien to these hundreds of millions of worshippers.

This reinterpretation of yours is a trick that can be (and has been) pulled with Christianity as well: just reinterpret it in an atheist way and claim that that's the most orthodox interpretation, and that therefore it follows that atheism is within the bounds of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson is one example of a "Christian" who did this. In fact there's a whole movement called Christian Atheism -- but as with your case, its adherents aren't part of the actual Christian religion.

In summary, you're not representing Hinduism as commonly understood. You're being an atheist who insists that Hinduism allows for this viewpoint, but that's a linguistic trick, not a meaningful clarification of what Hinduism is.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Hail to you members all.

A follower of the One True Religion, I am.
Be there other followers on ye forum?
Nice it would be, to hear from you.
Dispel the loneliness it would.
Soothe my pain it might.
Relieve my fears perchance --
for a while.

May you be safe.

Welcome Roguish.

Humans are fallible and so are religions. There is no one absolutely true religion. I believe there is one absolute truth (shadows and blindness don't mean there is no light). We can humbly approach this truth with seeking and letting be sought. This is the spiritual core of all religions.

My reference frame is Christianity because it's my native cultural platform. I have found enough value in it to stick with it while keeping an open mind and healthy measure of scepticism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even any non-Indian who's been to India senses that: Hinduism clearly is very theist, and the vast majority of its adherents believe firmly in theistic worship. Atheist reinterpretations such as yours are alien to these hundreds of millions of worshipers.
In summary, you're not representing Hinduism as commonly understood. You're being an atheist who insists that Hinduism allows for this viewpoint, but that's a linguistic trick, not a meaningful clarification of what Hinduism is.

Kindly know that it is a very old view, at least 3000 years old. It is mentioned in RigVeda. It is found in orthodox Hindu philosophies (Darshanas). It has Sects devoted to it. So, how does it matter if it is not the majority view? As far as majority goes, only one view can claim it, but that does not deny the existence of hundreds of other views. Views exist peacefully together in Hinduism.

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
Gaudapada - Wikipedia
Samkhya - Wikipedia
Vaisheshika - Wikipedia
Hindu atheism - Wikipedia

 

[Muffled]

A blessing, dyslexia can be.
I hope you will take no offense at this my uncommon view.



Yoda and his teachings -- without value they are not.
Yet, Star Wars is not a form of authentic religion.
It was, in its first six instalments, the attempt of a good, but somewhat naïve man
to give expression to the vestiges of religion that he could still find in himself.
Those vestiges were still strong enough to resonate
with similar vestiges present in some of us.

But, having acknowledged a modicum of worth in it,
describe myself as a believer in "The Force" I cannot,
as it would suggest a certain frivolousness and arbitrariness,
while in truth the One True Religion
is all severity, gravity, and earnestness.

Evidently the one true religion isn't mine. I believe in being joyful and celebrating all that God has for me in my religion.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being."

Next line:

"He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."

No atheism here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why, @PearlSeeker ? If he did not form it, then he is not a God in usual sense. Similarly, if he does not know, then also he is not a God in the usual sense.

 

[Roguish]

Evidently the one true religion isn't mine. I believe in being joyful and celebrating all that God has for me in my religion.

God's Promise is of the Beyond.
To receive God's Promise is a blessing indeed,
but to see it fulfilled, you must do your part,
or rather, endure your part -- and it's a tough part.

A modest advance-celebration of God's Promise
may be appropriate once,
and so may acknowledgment of the Beauty that once was.
But ongoing joy in this world is an obstacle, not a help.

Be wary of undue optimism
for the journey is long and arduous.
Let not hope in this world creep into your heart
lest Evil's minions cement the prison around you.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why, @PearlSeeker ? If he did not form it, then he is not a God in usual sense. Similarly, if he does not know, then also he is not a God in the usual sense.

He is God - usual or perhaps unusual.

 

[CG Didymus]

A follower of the One True Religion, I am.

How many "one true religions" are there? Most every religious person I talk to believes in the "one true religion". But all believe in a different one, they do.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You're changing the meaning of the term "Hinduism" to include interpretations that -- by your own admission -- the majority of Hindus do reject as "not acceptable" (your term) and "contradictory" (also your term). Your insistence that Hinduism is a "free form religion" really only pertains to Hinduism as redefined by you, not to Hinduism as understood by the majority of its adherents. Even any non-Indian who's been to India senses that: Hinduism clearly is very theist, and the vast majority of its adherents believe firmly in theistic worship. Atheist reinterpretations such as yours are alien to these hundreds of millions of worshippers.

This reinterpretation of yours is a trick that can be (and has been) pulled with Christianity as well: just reinterpret it in an atheist way and claim that that's the most orthodox interpretation, and that therefore it follows that atheism is within the bounds of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson is one example of a "Christian" who did this. In fact there's a whole movement called Christian Atheism -- but as with your case, its adherents aren't part of the actual Christian religion.

In summary, you're not representing Hinduism as commonly understood. You're being an atheist who insists that Hinduism allows for this viewpoint, but that's a linguistic trick, not a meaningful clarification of what Hinduism is.

You would do well to learn a bit more about Hinduism. It is a very diverse religion with many schools of philosophy under the umbrella term of Hinduism. Not all of them are considered theistic.

Hindu atheism - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

He is God - usual or perhaps unusual.

You know, atheist do not accept such irrational statements.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You know, atheist do not accept such irrational statements.

Author of that rig veda hymn apparently does.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The writer of "Nasadiya Sukta", Prajapati Parameshthin, is expressing his doubts. He never accepted existence of Gods prior to the creation of the universe. He clearly said "Gods are later to the creation of the universe". This is no different from what an atheist would say today after some 3,000 years. Of course, Parameshthin's views were not the most popular views in RigVeda. Another famous hymn, "Ka" ("Kasmai Devaya Havisha Vedhema?" - To which God should we offer oblations?) was written in reply to "Nasadiya Sukta". But that does not nullify what Parameshthin said.

"hiraṇyagharbhaḥ samavartatāgre bhūtasya jātaḥ patirekāsīta l
sa dādhāra pṛthivīṃ dyāmutemāṃ kasmai devāya haviṣā vidhema ll"
IN the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha*, born Only Lord of all created beings.
He fixed and holds up this earth and heaven. What God shall we adore with our oblation?
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXI. Ka.

* Hiranyagarbha: One born from the golden egg.