Opinion of Sikhism

[Slander and/or Libel]

Guys, the logic is pretty simple:

Religion A makes a claim about the world and divinity.
Religion B makes a separate claim.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B have conflicting claims.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B can not BOTH be correct.
Therefore if one adheres to Religion A, they must believe Religion B is a false religion and vice-versa.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and doesn't believe all non-Christian religions are false must have some serious logical reasoning problems.

What a sad, blinkered view of religion you have.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Guys, the logic is pretty simple:

Religion A makes a claim about the world and divinity.
Religion B makes a separate claim.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B have conflicting claims.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B can not BOTH be correct.
Therefore if one adheres to Religion A, they must believe Religion B is a false religion and vice-versa.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and doesn't believe all non-Christian religions are false must have some serious logical reasoning problems.

What a sad, blinkered view of religion you have.

You think simple logical syllogisms are sad and blinkered? Good grief.

I think that reducing religion to a competing, zero sum set of logical claims is sad and blinkered, yes.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Guys, the logic is pretty simple:

Religion A makes a claim about the world and divinity.
Religion B makes a separate claim.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B have conflicting claims.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B can not BOTH be correct.
Therefore if one adheres to Religion A, they must believe Religion B is a false religion and vice-versa.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and doesn't believe all non-Christian religions are false must have some serious logical reasoning problems.

What a sad, blinkered view of religion you have.

You think simple logical syllogisms are sad and blinkered? Good grief.

I think that reducing religion to a competing, zero sum set of logical claims is sad and blinkered, yes.

Truth claims are an integral part of what religion is. It attempts to answer big questions like the nature of the divine, what happens after death, how should we live etc. Moreover, the religions themselves make key, mutually exclusive truth claims.

Jesus Christ among other things said "Before Abraham was, I AM" and "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." What does Islam have to say about this? Islam says there is only one God, Allah. What does Hinduism or Mormonism have to say about that?

Many religions have made important, mutually exclusive truth claims, have stated their importance, and have built entire ways of life around them. To come along and say that the view of religion they've built up is 'sad and blinkered' is not only patronizing to those religions and their adherents, it's also making yet another mutually exclusive truth claim about religious faith and the divine.

There are plenty of religious people who don't view those truth claims as fundamentally at odds with one another. Sure, some of the claims are incompatible in a strict sense, but that's reducing religion to a set of truth claims, and dismissing things like long mystical traditions across all sorts of religious traditions. In Eastern Christianity, for instance (as I'm sure you know), the doctrine of the Trinity isn't a confusing set of facts to be puzzled out, but an incomprehensible puzzle whose logical entanglement is integral to it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Guys, the logic is pretty simple:

Religion A makes a claim about the world and divinity.
Religion B makes a separate claim.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B have conflicting claims.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B can not BOTH be correct.
Therefore if one adheres to Religion A, they must believe Religion B is a false religion and vice-versa.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and doesn't believe all non-Christian religions are false must have some serious logical reasoning problems.

What a sad, blinkered view of religion you have.

You think simple logical syllogisms are sad and blinkered? Good grief.

I think that reducing religion to a competing, zero sum set of logical claims is sad and blinkered, yes.

Can you actually debunk this instead of just dismissing it?

Like if I believe in Jesus how can I believe a religion that rejects the divinity of Jesus is also true?

I'm making a subjective, not an objective claim. I'm not saying your claim is factually wrong, just that I believe it exposes a view of religion that is (as I put it, prejudicially) sad and blinkered. There's nothing that needs debunking. That's my opinion. You're free to yours. But viewing all religions that aren't yours as horrible because they're not yours goes well beyond sad and blinkered, IMO.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Guys, the logic is pretty simple:

Religion A makes a claim about the world and divinity.
Religion B makes a separate claim.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B have conflicting claims.
Therefore Religion A and Religion B can not BOTH be correct.
Therefore if one adheres to Religion A, they must believe Religion B is a false religion and vice-versa.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and doesn't believe all non-Christian religions are false must have some serious logical reasoning problems.

What a sad, blinkered view of religion you have.

You think simple logical syllogisms are sad and blinkered? Good grief.

I think that reducing religion to a competing, zero sum set of logical claims is sad and blinkered, yes.

Can you actually debunk this instead of just dismissing it?

Like if I believe in Jesus how can I believe a religion that rejects the divinity of Jesus is also true?

Please show me where Hinduism at-large -- to the extent that there even is a practical "Hinduism at-large" -- materially rejects the divinity of Jesus.

One can be a Hindu who believes in Christ, but one cannot believe in Christ and be a Hindu.

I think you wanna check your math again on this one.