Do Hindus really believe in more than one god?

[lightgigantic]

Yes, there are approximately 30,000 different Protestant Christian sects.
I'm not sure what your point is.

It would be wrong to say, "Christians believe this way" about a lot of things in Christianity too, which is why I try not to say that.
There are quite a few things in common among Christian sects.
However, saying "According to MANY Christians...", "Accoring to Southern Baptist beliefs..." or "The New Testament says..."
The same as if you are talking about Hinduism.

That said, Hinduism leaves a lot more open to personal interpretation than Christianity in general without the necessity to form distinct seperate sects.

If you choose to believe Mara was real, yet Hanuman was just a fable, that's just fine.
If you choose to believe that Jesus was real, yet the Apostles were just fables, you have to form your own sect of Christianity.

I suspect the difference comes partly from Christianity having the Roman Catholic megalith behind it making "rules" to rebel and protest against.

its not clear how you establish that nothing can be determined as "true" according to hinduism or religion in general. It seems all you require for a truth to be degenerated is that it competes in an atmosphere with false truths.

For instance, before medical practice got standardized and instituitionalized in the west, did the plethora of magical tonic peddlers make the practice of medicine totally untruthful, or was it merely that proper medical practice was difficult to encounter due to so many baseless assertions?

 

[one_raven]

its not clear how you establish that nothing can be determined as "true" according to hinduism or religion in general. It seems all you require for a truth to be degenerated is that it competes in an atmosphere with false truths.

I think you missed my point.
What I was saying was that starting a sentence with, "According to Hinduism..." is most often a fallacy, because Hinduism is so wide open to personal interpretation.
For example, saying that Vishnu is the Supreme God and manifestation of Brahma, is not true, because not all Hindu believe that to be teh truth, and Hinduism doesn't have any steadfast rule that states such.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think you missed my point.
What I was saying was that starting a sentence with, "According to Hinduism..." is most often a fallacy, because Hinduism is so wide open to personal interpretation.
For example, saying that Vishnu is the Supreme God and manifestation of Brahma, is not true, because not all Hindu believe that to be teh truth, and Hinduism doesn't have any steadfast rule that states such.

then it raises the question, "who can speak for hinduism", which is kind of an oxymoron, because the word "hindu" doesn't even appear in any vedic literature (being introduced as a somewhat derrogatory term by the muslim invaders, referring to the people who lived over the sindu river) - in other words the very word hindu is not a religious one but a geographical/cultural one

 

[Ayodhya]

then it raises the question, "who can speak for hinduism", which is kind of an oxymoron, because the word "hindu" doesn't even appear in any vedic literature (being introduced as a somewhat derrogatory term by the muslim invaders, referring to the people who lived over the sindu river) - in other words the very word hindu is not a religious one but a geographical/cultural one

So Hindus are kind of like Jews, but with our own country?

 

[lightgigantic]

So Hindus are kind of like Jews, but with our own country?

I don't think so - its more like a conglomerate that has lost its variety due to an array of politics and weak orthodoxy - for instance the people who did the most to destroy "hindu" culture, were the indians themselves when they got independence and there was a big political puch for a "unified people" ... so "hinduism" was the square peg that was crammed in the circular hole for this purpose

 

[one_raven]

then it raises the question, "who can speak for hinduism"...

Exactly!
That's the point.