Opinion of Sikhism

[DC Al Fine]

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.

[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.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Better than Christianity or Islam, overall.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

[°Leprechaun]

Better than Christianity or Islam, overall.

[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.

[°Leprechaun]

It's a false religion, so HP.

All religions are false

The sad truth is so many are doctrines in organized religion that they'll never gasp the truth of reality where we living on this planet. It's nothing to do with following the rituals of some fictional nut job like Jesus or Muhammad but being kind to our fellow human beings and other forms of life, which isn't addressed in any of the Abrahamic religions.

(although I don't agree 100% with this, you make some excellent points)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[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.

[°Leprechaun]

BRTD has been consistent since he first registered on this site in oversimplifying everything, as he is doing in this thread.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

BRTD has been consistent since he first registered on this site in oversimplifying everything, as he is doing in this thread.

I don't agree with him that often, but no one in this thread has been able to refute him.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     Eastern Christianity doesn't make-believe that it is possible for both Christianity and Sikhism to be true. Cataphatic theology is an observation on the fundamentally incomprehensible nature of God. It is not an excuse to advance logically impossible claims.

     We still hold it to be a fact that there is one God, who created humanity in His image, and that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, died for all our sins. Any religion that rejects these claims rejects our mystical tradition and is false in our eyes. Despite that, God by His grace can and does save upright people who adhere to non-Christian faiths. This is not to be understood as affirming those faiths to be true.

[°Leprechaun]

BRTD has been consistent since he first registered on this site in oversimplifying everything, as he is doing in this thread.

I don't agree with him that often, but no one in this thread has been able to refute him.

That would be easy to do, but also a waste of time.
Clearly, two contradictory opinions are mutually exclusive, but they are opinions, not facts.

edit: mysticism begins in a mist is centered around "I" and ends in schism.

[Demon King Piccolo]

Horrible due to being a religion.

But one of the least horrendous religions. It's all on a scale.

[Dr. MB]

The second-wokest religion (after Zoroastrianism)

[Kleine Scheiße]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

It makes no sense to believe in all those elephant gods or whatever and also believe Jesus was God.

[Kleine Scheiße]

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.

It makes no sense to believe in all those elephant gods or whatever and also believe Jesus was God.

Ah, there we go.

Hey, everyone! He said the quiet part out loud!

[Mopsus]

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.

[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.

[Mopsus]

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.

The important thing here is priority.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

It makes no sense to believe in all those elephant gods or whatever and also believe Jesus was God.

Ah, there we go.

Hey, everyone! He said the quiet part out loud!

?

[°Leprechaun]

For anyone who doesn't know: Sikhism is a monotheist religion. It is "unitarian", of course, so anyone who holds to trinitarian ideas will not necessarily find it completely compatible with Christianity.

It is not Hindu, despite a few similarities. Not everyone who is a hindu is polytheist, anyway.

[TDAS04]

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.

As a Christian, I believe that the fundamental truth claims of Sikhism are false.  But there is a whole lot more to a religion than their truth claims.

Exactly.  While I don't believe in the fundamental truth claims of Buddhism, I still like Buddhist architecture, and I admire the motivation that Buddhists feel to be kind.  Also, just because a religion isn't exactly true, that doesn't mean that all of that religion's teachings are incompatible with Christianity.

[Kleine Scheiße]

For anyone who doesn't know: Sikhism is a monotheist religion. It is "unitarian", of course, so anyone who holds to trinitarian ideas will not necessarily find it completely compatible with Christianity.

It is not Hindu, despite a few similarities. Not everyone who is a hindu is polytheist, anyway.

Seconding this. It is worth noting that in the United States, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains occasionally share holy spaces out of necessity because of the partial overlap that does exist, but they are three ultimately distinct traditions.

I don't know if even most Hindus are "polytheistic." In a literal sense, most Hindus revere more than one deity, of course, which is a form of polytheism, but it really would seem to depend as much on philosophy as individual psychology. Are deities "Gods" or are they godly? I'm not sure there is a consensus within Hinduism.

Finally providing an actual take on the topic at hand -- I am not as well-versed in Sikhism as I am in other Dharmic traditions. I was trained to view Sikhism as a synthesis of Hinduism and Islam, and I've come to disagree with that view on a historical basis, though there is a useful Venn diagram to be made there.

I appreciate much about the relatively basic information I have retained about Sikhism. The main reason I have not investigated Sikhism more on a personal level is that I do not find it especially helpful to demarcate the godhead as an entity in and of itself separate from Being, or as singular in nature. I prefer a totalistic characterization, and I have found the Upanishads personally resonant to that end.

I also am not very keen on the level of reverence Sikhism seems to require for specific authors who wrote specific things and made specific contributions to "Sikhism-in-and-of-Itself." I recognize this is not inherently any better or worse than using reformers to justify abstract doctrinal/thought movement, or using figures of debatable historicity to communicate the same ideas. I just find it harder to accept.