So if Buddhism does not assert that it is the One True Path, what's the Fourth Noble Truth?
In America, Buddhism tends to be portrayed in this sort of light: basically, that Buddhism makes no exclusivist truth claims. But for a Mahayana Buddhist to make the Bodhisattva Vow in the context of the Four Noble Truths necessarily entails teaching others about certain things which are True, to the exclusion of things which are false (belief in Jesus or Allah or Vishnu etc) Perhaps the missionary form of this is not quite equivalent to, say, Evangelical Protestantism, but it's there.
One concept within Mahayana Buddhism is that of Skillful Means, the idea that sometimes a teacher has to use or allow an expedient practice even if it's not the "highest" truth. So the Zen Buddhists say that all the Shin Buddhists are ok, because it's just skillful means for them to believe in the salvific power of Amida Buddha and next life they'll have a better chance at encountering the fullness of Zen. Or maybe their recitation of the nembutsu is just some sort of meditative practice that happens to produce desirable Buddhist qualities. Nevermind that this is totally revisionist to the Shin understanding.
Yes, you can be angry and discompassionate and attached to worldly things and "be Buddhist." But if you die that way you probably won't be reborn as a human. Maybe as a hungry ghost or a fighting demon. :)
So if Buddhism does not assert that it is the One True Path, what's the Fourth Noble Truth?
The hand pointing to the moon is not the moon.
``Come, Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with a liking for a view after pondering it or with someone else's ability or with the thought 'The monk is our teacher.' When you know in yourself 'These things are unprofitable, liable to censure, condemned by the wise, being adopted and put into effect, they lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them.''
The Buddha is saying not to follow something on the basis of externals, but rather on one's own self testing. That the Buddha arrived at the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path through such testing is of importance.
If we return to the Pali scriptures, we can see that although the Buddha states that the question of God/gods is in the realm of "unanswerable questions," that even if they did exist they would ultimately undergo death and rebirth, albeit perhaps in an unimaginably long time frame from the perspective of humans. He considers debates over deities pointless, _because even they are subject to the truths he espouses_. Is this not a truth claim that contradicts most theistic religions? Is this not a truth claim to the supersession of Buddhist truth over others? (Forgive me, but my copy is in another location so I can't give an exact reference.)
Although the view of deities in Buddhism differs between schools, the general understanding of Buddhism is that such belief is not conducive to enlightenment. This is indeed an exclusivist truth claim to the superiority of the Buddhist practice.
"The pointing finger is not the moon" has never, IME, been taken to make ontological claims of any kind about the moon, except that it's not the finger pointed at it. It means the same thing as, "The map is not the territory," and not, "Because this map shows rivers and towns in these locations, such rivers and towns must exist."
Your idea of a thing is simply and solely your idea of the thing; the thing, itself, is simply and solely the thing, itself. Buddhism just suggests out that you conflate them at your peril (to the extent, of course, that Buddhism has a notion of "peril").
Buddhism may assert that there is a true path. The difference between it, and many other religions, is that you don't have to be Buddhist to walk the eightfold path.
What you've said is just an instance of skilfull means. Ultimately, the followers of other religions (or no religion) will suffer rebirth in Samsara and continue to experience suffering. To the degree that they walk the eightfold path via their current paradigm, that will determine the quality of rebirth.
Edit: My point is that Buddhism proclaims that the Four Noble Truths are applicable to _all sentient beings_. Not that they are applicable only to Buddhists. If that was the case, then the Bodhisattva Vow could be resolved simply by the cessation of Buddhism! But the Bodhisattva Vow is a vow to save all sentient beings, not all Buddhists.
In America, Buddhism tends to be portrayed in this sort of light: basically, that Buddhism makes no exclusivist truth claims. But for a Mahayana Buddhist to make the Bodhisattva Vow in the context of the Four Noble Truths necessarily entails teaching others about certain things which are True, to the exclusion of things which are false (belief in Jesus or Allah or Vishnu etc) Perhaps the missionary form of this is not quite equivalent to, say, Evangelical Protestantism, but it's there.
One concept within Mahayana Buddhism is that of Skillful Means, the idea that sometimes a teacher has to use or allow an expedient practice even if it's not the "highest" truth. So the Zen Buddhists say that all the Shin Buddhists are ok, because it's just skillful means for them to believe in the salvific power of Amida Buddha and next life they'll have a better chance at encountering the fullness of Zen. Or maybe their recitation of the nembutsu is just some sort of meditative practice that happens to produce desirable Buddhist qualities. Nevermind that this is totally revisionist to the Shin understanding.
Yes, you can be angry and discompassionate and attached to worldly things and "be Buddhist." But if you die that way you probably won't be reborn as a human. Maybe as a hungry ghost or a fighting demon. :)