Do deities from other religions exist?

Anyone religion can make those claim. You lose all credibility when making such claim. I laugh reading how Buddhist text mentioned Muslim Prophet. Maitreya has multiple meanings (one of which is there is nothing coming in the future, it's in you) and if you generalize it to a future person that is "love", you can then said every single important figure in religion after the Buddha time is mentioned in the Buddhist's text.

 

Notice how cml bounces after blatantly lying. So called Islam "expert" LOL

@fchowd0311 @FranchiseBlade

 

I don't think he's posted anywhere else. He may have Fathers day plans or something else. Either way, it doesn't excuse him being completely wrong and claiming to be someone who is well studied on the matter.

 

Yeah that's what's a little offensive about Atheism to me personally. When one says I "know" god or anything spiritual doesn't exist. It's basically the same as one saying they "know" god exist. Both IMO are blind assessments. I understand if one thinks it's highly unlikely such as my self, but I'm still agnostic as I do not know anything.

 

No deities exist

 

I see that you went to " buddhism defense blog" and copy-pasted the contents which is fine , but it would be more credible to mentioned the first result that google came up with : "

According to Buddhist tradition, Maitreya is a bodhisattva who will appear on Earth in the future, achieve complete enlightenment, and teach the pure dharma. According to scriptures, Maitreya will be a successor to the present Buddha, Gautama Buddha (also known as Śākyamuni Buddha)."

now here is the theological argument : over 120+ prophets mentioned in Judaism,Christianity and Islam could fit this narrative not necessarily exclusive to Muhammed , could be like other Abrahamic religions changed by the effect of time and human
another way to look at it : the achiever of complete enlightenment based on Buddha himself is not him, someone else will fulfill it , his original teaching will be changed and no longer considered pure dharma.

now the argument of Zakir Nike is not interesting by itself if it wasn't followed by another argument from the main source of Buddhism (the Hindu scripture)

 

Can you show me proof any god exist? Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc? There is FAITH based on writing of MEN. I would hope there is a higher power, but it makes u wonder the "Free Will" excuse used to ask why bad things happen and assholes get to become President and enrich themselves on the backs of others.......is BULLSHIT.

Show me proof that one god is better than another god. Hell.....show me that any gods exist.

 

What the heck is "buddhism defense blog"? I reply with my own understanding and knowledge of Buddhism texts (in no way advanced) that I have directly read or listen to other scholar and serious practitioner explain for close to a decade now. I'm no Buddhist, but I enjoy learning about his teaching because it has some interesting concept of the mind, something that is still not very well understood in today Science.

Google isn't always accurate, but yes, that's the conventional understanding of it. I already explained in brief that it's not all that. As for Dharma and complete enlightenment, I'm not going into it here. If you are truly interested in understanding those more, read more of it from Buddhist scholar or resources. It will take you years.

A piece of advice - it's extremely hard to get a good grasp of complex topic based on flash knowledge from the internet.

 

Studied all the major active and several lesser known religions a great deal in college and on my own.

They all have flaws, as they all are a reflection of the imperfect people that wrote them and thought of them.

Having said that, without question the least impressive major religion is Islam.

The texts are very poorly written, typically rehash concepts and philosophies that were not original or were common in other parts of the world. The supposed "proof" is beyond flimsy.

I could easily write a dissertation on the holes in the the other two Abrahamic faiths, but at a minimum both of them are well written, some what sophisticated or offer a philosophy that diverges greatly from the norm at the time.

All of the modern world religions are easy to criticize, but some are easier than others.

On a side note, anyone that believes in Rapture is bat **** crazy.

 

That describes my own position on the issue almost perfectly. I "don't know" and don't lose any sleep over it. My more typical response to this question would be, "I wouldn't belong to a religion that would have me as a member," with a bow towards Groucho.

 

Atheists should believe what they see, and if you believe in God that is good.

 

Why?
Where is the proof the is 1 god, let alone gods from other religions than Christianity? Books written by MAN is not proof.

 

Exactly how was the bible written? Yes, I know God wrote it, how was it proven?

 

Are you sure? God didn't right the Bible, it was written by MEN.

Here is the problem with Religion. Everyone thinks theirs is better.....truer...than others. Who say the 1.1 Billion Hindus in the world are not right with their gods vs. The Muslims, Jew, and Christians? Why can't Buddhist be right? Religion has become a way just to manipulate people......controlling them. It is supposed to be about bettering themselves....living a righteous life. For many, it is just a way to make money.........

 

Sorry, I misread your post, I agree with you.

 

I was with you to that last little bit. Absolutely nothing original in either Judaism or Christianity.

 

Is the concept of turning the other cheek and loving the enemy one that existed pre-Christianity? I'm aware that at times the Dalai Lama has advocated something like that, but I didn't know that it was around before Christianity. The idea of loving your enemy and turning the other cheek goes beyond just the Golden Rule. It goes way beyond that. The idea that if someone steals your coat you should give them your shirt as well, etc.

I'm not saying that it did originate with Christianity, but I hadn't seen it any other place. I think there are some things close to it in Buddhism but still different.

 

IIRC this was derived from Wisdom sayings.

 

the gospel of Matthew was allegedly targeting only the Jews, who had the law in place of an eye for an eye , unlike Paul,it has some credibility. Now the thing is Dalai Lama is not really forgiving the Chinese or giving them the other cheek and in the same time ,Matthew gospel itself full of contradiction like Jesus declining to forgive whenever he had a chance.

Judaism: eye for an eye
Christianity :give the other cheek
Islam :eye for an eye & if you forgive its better

lack of p*rn contents must took a toll on your judgment

Spoiler: 18+