>While this is true I'm not overly fond of your explanation as to why. It isn't Hinduism being strange in it's versatility, it's the strangeness of the Abraham faiths. Having a fluid and accepting religious beliefs is default, it doesn't make all that much sense to get upset over the things that a Christian might. The Abrahamic faiths are absolute. There is no room for any other belief system, and excluding Judaism both believe in eternal punishment and reward based on your adherence to an orthodoxy. These are what make them intolerant. Without them there is no reason to care if someone believes something different.
I meant to say that it is strange from our perspective, which is shaped by Western/Semitic religions. I suppose a more fluid approach to religious beliefs is more 'natural', but it's hard to say if that's a better approach or not.
Hudson Watson
Is this /x/ or Veeky Forums i don't know, i love both and love this.
Mason Jackson
>but it's hard to say if that's a better approach or not Considering the rarity of religious violence in open systems compared to absolute ones I would say it is definitely a better approach. Even in the modern world the religious violence committed by open systems strongly tends to be against absolute religions because those religious by their very nature oppose what they believe. Look at Rome, been around for eight, nine hundred years with almost no religious violence of any kind and then as soon as Christianity becomes the state religion a whole bunch of people die because they have different ideas about the substance of Jesus.
It just seems like the one guy who believes every religion is a manifestation of the true God is the only /x/ sort here.
