text:
Why aren't there 5 Noble Truths?
Consider the fact that our Nirvana depends on one crucial truth and that is law of Karma. Good karma bear good fruit and bad karma generates bad results.
Why didn't Buddha say that Fifth Noble Truth is law of Karma ?

Other answers say that kamma is already covered by, or implicit in, the first and/or second noble truths.
I think it's related to the fourth noble truth -- i.e. you say that kamma is important to attaining nirvana (and I think that "the path towards attaining nirvana" is what the fourth noble truth is about).
Or, perhaps, you can see "bad karma" and "good karma" in the second and third noble truths respectively.

I find the logical structure of the four noble truths satisfying or persuasive.
The first three have the structure of a syllogism:

premise: dukkha exists, and is this and that
premise: dukkha is associated with craving
theorem: dukkha ceases when craving ceases

So that's the doctrine "in a nutshell".
The fourth is, then, an introduction to the rest of Buddhism:

to begin to implement that in practice, see the noble eightfold way

I think that (as well as karma) there are other important aspects of dharma -- e.g. anatta, dependent origination, the sangha, the qualities conducive to Enlightenment, and so on.
So I don't see why you see the need to "privilege" karma (as more important than other doctrines) -- but it's helpful that there is a doctrine with only 4 (memorable) truths, rather than (less memorable) 20. The "4 truths" served as (and still serve as) an introduction to the dharma.

Or perhaps you're saying that the doctrine of karma should be privileged because it's the single most important doctrine to remember. If so, maybe you're not wrong; but there are also some other dharmas that people have been inclined to say are the most important -- for example, "right view"; or maybe "harmlessness", "generosity", "skilful virtue", "admirable friendship", "attention"; and so on.

I agree that the structure of the four truths is satisfying, but strictly speaking the first three of the four truths do not form a syllogism. The four truths are most compelling in the context of more extensive reasoning. These are examples of syllogisms: P1. Suffering is a phenomenon; P2. All phenomena are caused; C1. Therefore, suffering is caused. P3. If a phenomenon is caused, then it can be eliminated by eliminating its causes; P4. Suffering is a phenomenon that is caused; C2. Therefore, suffering can be eliminated by eliminating its causes.

@BigMac Yes. You are right. I think the structure of 4 Nobel Truth is that of disease diagnosis as Andrei said.

@DheerajVerma A good source on the medical analogy in the four truths is: Bhikkhu Anālayo, Right view and the scheme of the four truths in early Buddhism: the Samyukta-āgama parallel to the Sammāditthi-sutta and the simile of the four skills of a physician, Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies, 7, 11–44, 2011.

Nibbana does not depend on anything. That's why it is called 'uncaused'.
Karma is covered in the Second Noble Truth. Craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming and craving for non-becoming are all Karma.

The whole structure of the four truths can be seen as a teaching about karma (cause and effect); that's why the four truths are sometimes called the "two sets of cause and effect"; see, for example:
The third paragraph in The Four Noble Truths by Theravadin teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

To counter this problem, the four noble truths drop ideas of me/not
  me, and being/not being, and replace them with two sets of variables:
  cause and effect, skillful and unskillful. In other words, there is
  the truth of stress and suffering (unskillful effect), the truth of
  the origination of stress (unskillful cause), the truth of the
  cessation of stress (skillful effect), and the truth of the path to
  the cessation of stress (skillful cause).

The section titled "The Two Sets of Cause and Effect" in The Four Noble Truths by Tibetan teacher Geshe Tashi Tsering:

One of the key beliefs in Buddhism is that nothing comes into being
  without a cause, and this law of cause and effect is a fundamental
  point for understanding the four noble truths. The following table
  shows two sets of cause and effect: suffering as the result of the
  origin of suffering and cessation as the result of the path.
               Result            Cause

Problem        1. Suffering      2. Origin

Solution       3. Cessation      4. Path

Although these two sets of cause and effect are very specific, they
  follow the rule of all causes and effects, and in particular the type
  of cause and effect called karma in Buddhism.

Cause and effect as described in dependent origination is devoid of any self. The aim is cessation of karma to achieve cessation of craving which achieves cessation of suffering

@DheerajVerma Thich Nhat Hanh noted: "the Buddha did say that craving is the cause of suffering, but he said this because craving is the first on the list of afflictions (kleshas). If we use our intelligence, we can see that craving can be a cause of pain, but other afflictions such as anger, ignorance, suspicion, arrogance, and wrong views can also cause pain and suffering. Ignorance, which gives rise to wrong perceptions, is responsible for much of our pain. To make the sutras shorter and therefore easier to memorize, the first item on a list was often used to represent the whole list."

Sorry I made a mistake in my previous comment. It it through cessation of craving that cessation of karma is achieved. Karma is defined in dependent origination as Volitional processes and Continuation( 2nd and 10th). My point was that cause and effect can not be called Karma. For example Ignorance , craving and attachment can not be called Karma although they arise due to cause. Origin of suffering is craving. Craving leads to Suffering. Craving is not Karma. Therefore Suffering,Origin can not be said to be due to karma. Craving is mental affliction.

@DheerajVerma Yes, craving leads to suffering, and craving is a mental affliction, but as (for example) Thich Nhat Hanh noted in the quotation above, from The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, page 22, craving is not the only mental affliction and is not the only thing that leads to suffering, as we can see by examining our own experience. The four truths "can be seen as" a teaching about karma, but they are not only about karma, just as they are not only about craving. The four truths are a very deep and multifaceted teaching.

Kamma is already covered in the first noble truth that there is suffering.
From AN 5.57:

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
  owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
  origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
  the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
  that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
  their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
  kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
  whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
  this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
  and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
  and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

The noble disciple reflects that he is not the only one. He reflects that all beings are subject to kamma, which results in their birth, death and rebirth based on their kamma. This is one aspect of suffering. Reflecting thus, he chooses to follow the path laid out in the fourth noble truth, in order to become free from suffering.
But at the same time, we should not adopt the Jain fallacy that everything that happens is due to kamma, as seen in the Sivaka Sutta:

"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

Good karma gives you good destination, and bad gives you bad destination. But it doesn't matter good or bad. All birth is suffering: because where ever born then there is aging and dying. So karma is in the second noble truth:

yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā

ponobbhavikā ("leading to rebirth") is new karma.

MN 19 Dvedhavitakka Sutta:

Before my self-awakening, back when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: What if I divide all my thoughts into two groups?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, negativity, harmfulness etc. one group, and thinking imbued with renunciation, non-negativity, & harmlessness etc. - another group.

So yes, if you understand karma as dividing all your action (physical, verbal, and mental) into wholesome and unwholesome, and then minimizing one and maximizing the other - then yes, this is a key teaching. And in a way, it's a complete teaching - one could follow it without asking further questions, and by figuring out all implications arrive at Buddha's result.
However, an explanation like "To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas." (Dhammapada) lacks context: WHY? Why do good? What's wrong with evil? What will I get if I follow this teaching?
So Four Noble Truths structure the teaching like a doctor would structure a consultation with the patient. First it discusses the symptoms, then the diagnosis (the root cause of the symptoms), then it states that removing the root cause will fix the problem, then it offers a methodical plan of healing.
The fourth truth, the Eighfold Path, is 100% based on the "two kinds of thoughts" and the idea of good vs. bad karma. Every item in Eightfold Path starts with the word Samma, which means "correctly done, good quality". So every item explains right and wrong, not just applied to Physical, Verbal, and Mental action - but also applied to View, Livelihood, Practice, Mindfulness, Meditation and so on.
Finally, as Buddha explained in MN 101, it is wrong view to assume that liberation happens as a result of good karma. Instead, according to Buddha's teaching in MN 101, liberation from dukkha is achieved by "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now":

When I exert a [physical, verbal, or mental] fabrication against this cause of stress, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.' So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the stress coming from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the stress resulting from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the development of equanimity is exhausted ...
On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an odor with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the sense faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. ...
Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness and anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty. ...
Having abandoned these five hindrances — imperfections of awareness that weaken discernment — then, quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana ... second jhana ... third jhana ... fourth jhana ...
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that ... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world. ...
Such is the teaching of the Tathagata.

"Good" & "bad kamma" are ignoble, dirty & filthy defiled things. They are not Noble Truth.

And what is the right view with effluents [defilements], siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [attachments]? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father.
MN 117

"Good" & "bad kamma" are found in all worldly religions; which are not Noble Truth.

Yeah puthujjanas are stuck between what they call good and bad karma and since ''bad karma'' is ''bad'', they love to believe they become good people for striving to do the ''good'' karma. The love this good karma because the good karma does not lead to painful contact and they love to think that having good contacts is a good thing for them and other people.
It turns out that  What there is about ''common'' karma is bright karma,  dark karma, dark & bright. ANd even worse, none of those karmas makes you reach nirvana.

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.
"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html
Toxic Puhtthujanas love to confuse the bright karma with the non-bright & non-dark karma because they love to believe they generate the bright karma and they love to believe that they are good people for this generation.
Toxic puthujjanas love to think that karma is a good thing, but it really is not. It just a big mechanic scam since you do not even know if the karma will be good or bad. You do not know how the evolution of the karma that is ''attached to you'' end even less the karma ''of'' others.
Even worse, speculating about karma, trying to know about it with the usual ways of the puthujjanas is a big waste of time on the path to reach nirvana.
In therms of karma, THe whole point of nirvana is that the karma ends.
iN order To know about karma, the various destinations, for you and others, you need lots of work and even with this work, you are not an expert on karma like a buddha. At best a puthujjanas can know about karma by listening to a buddha. And even then, plenty of pathetic puthujjanas manage to cling to their fantasy of being a good guy for generating bright karma and neglect non-bright non-dark karma.
And even better about this non-bright non-dark karma, is that once the person is good at generating those non-bright non-dark karmas, the person automatically ''  fabricates a non-injurious bodily fabrication ... a non-injurious verbal fabrication ... a non-injurious mental fabrication '' like with the ''bright karma'', that puthujjanas crave  so much believing they do, which are part of the noble path.
Since you really worry about karma, be a good puthujjana and start by following the ''5 precepts'', each hour of each day of each week, which are typically tied to bright karma, but do not spend most on your life on this, and remember about this 4th karma and go beyond this bright karma by following the ''8 fold path''.
THe 8 fold path which is one of the ''truths'' is exactly what you imagine would be the ''5th noble truth''.
Once you follow the 8 fold path, you do not need to worry about all those karmas, you already know that the ''fabrications'' are the relevant ones and since you stop worrying about all that, you get better at generating piti, sukkha, samadhi and all that.
here is a little text about those karmas for more references.
http://read.goodweb.net.cn/PDF/p34/Karma%20In%20The%20Pali%20Suttas.pdf

Ajahn Buddhadāsa's Note: This matter of 4 kinds of karma appears in numerous suttas, with
  the same details in some places and different details in others: in the Kammavagga of the AN
  Fours, the Saṃkhitta Sutta (A.ii.230) and Vitthāra Sutta (A.ii.230, Cf NDB 123) have the same
  details as above for all four kinds; Paṭhamasikkhāpada Sutta (A.ii.234) has dark karma explained
  in terms of violating the five precepts and bright karma in terms of upholding the five precepts,
  while the other two karmas are the same as above; Dutiyasikkhāpada Sutta (A.ii.234, 21/319/236)
  has dark karma explained in terms of the five heinous actions and bright karma in terms of the ten
  bases of wholesome action; Ariyamagga Sutta (A.ii.235, 21/320/237) has the first three kinds of
  karma are explained the same as above while the fourth is in terms of the noble eightfold path;
  Bojjhaṅga Sutta (A.ii.236, 21/321/238) has the first three kinds of karma explained the same as
  above while the fourth is in terms of the seven factors of awakening. In some cases the Buddha
  spoke to bhikkhus and in other suttas he spoke to other kinds of people.


text:
As a Buddhist how do I get over hatred towards my previous religion?
I am filled with genuine hatred towards my previous religion. My hatred is not directed towards other religions it's just towards my past. And this constantly bubbles up during meditation.
I don't live in a majority Buddhist country and it was a long hard journey to arrive at the Dhamma.
I don't have any problem with them following their respective paths but I am filled with rage for all the lies that were filled in my head for their own greed and ignorance. I get so enraged when I see people around me preaching non-sense theology to other people and to what effect, only to fulfil material desires.
So, what is the strategy when you see the lies and ignorance around. Do you keep quiet as not to get into a debate to keep the 'Right Speech' or do you get into arguments?
How do I get rid of hatred and tolerate other people spreading lies?

You say your hatred isn't toward religion in general, but is "just toward your (specific) past" -- so ought you explain more than you have, about your past experience[s]? I find it hard to understand the problem as stated and to relate to the question, e.g. because when I've experienced people preaching I didn't interpret their motive as being "for their own greed and ignorance" and "only to fulfil material desires" -- is that (their motive) an important part of why you're angry? Are you angry about some material loss of yours, being defrauded?

@ChrisW I get your point. The question may have looked ambiguious. But answer your question it would becone long a very post. But in short I am angry to have led on to wrong beliefs. The belief that there is some benevolent God in heaven who  basically wishes good of me and is going to help me be happy if I pray him. This caused me lot of harm. Emotionally and otherwise to my life itself.

Would it be safe to say that you take serious issue with people lying to take advantage of others in general, not just in religion?

@undercat in a broader sense, yes

What is your former religion? The religion of my past is conservative baptist Christian. I generated a great deal of aversion toward it before I became a Buddhist. The Buddha dharma has actually helped me get past this aversion and see beauty in my past religion. If you are Christian, would be happy to share my perspective if it would help.

@YesheTenley  Thank you for your offer. Although my previous religion is hinduism, it will be helpful to know which Buddhist ideas got you past the aversion.

@FriedrickNietzsche i do not whether this will be helpful or not, but there was a great hindu scholar swami vivekanada (he was a great believer in buddha and a true representative of hinduism, i have no idea whose version of hinduism you followed since it is not even a religion). He has a nice book 'karma yoga' in which he discusses how to handle the dilemma of correcting others or just letting things go, this is the only book of him i have read so i have no idea whether there are better advices in his other books.

Were they lies, or merely falsehoods?  Typically lying requires one to know something and say another.

@CortAmmon so is “fairytale” telling “lying” or “falsehood”?

@Kyslik I'm sure that depends on how you tell it, and why.

Think of the followers of your former religion as people who believe that the earth is flat. There's no point getting angry at them. It's ok to argue with them in social circles if you feel it might be useful to some and if you are confident that you can handle it.
But if it is getting to the point that you start shouting at them or trash talking at them, you should stop and contemplate the Anatta nature of beings. You cannot make other beings think the way you want at will. Meditate on the wanting to control others' thoughts. Whenever anger arises in the mind, simply note it.

Well... I hate to say it (wink-wink)... but... having that rage and seeing that other religion as a collection of "lies" and those people as "liars" does say something about your level of realization in Buddhism. Yes, not very good.
You must change the way you relate to both, change the way you see it. Buddhism must not be handled as if it was a position of truth. Buddhism is a position of tolerance, a position of appreciating all positions. You should stop making Buddhism into another house for your ego.
When you get Buddhism, you don't identify with Buddhism. You see all religions, including Buddhism, as part-truths - echos or reflections of truth. Each partially valid and partially wrong in its own unique way. Then you can appreciate the wholesome elements in each and see the confused elements as natural side-effect of their chosen way to inform and communicate the wholesome elements.
I suggest you read Trungpa's Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Hopefully, it will help you see how Buddhism relates with Ego.

If religions are not lies, then what is it?

To me, they are useful fairy-tales, perfect for small children that most of us people still are. Fairy-tales tell truth, in simplified and decorated form - because children have simplistic mind and very short attention span. You can't tell them serious things, because they will stop listening before you finish, and will not understand if you do. IMO that's why wise people invented religions and fairy-tales.

@J.Chang The philosopher Alan Watts often talked about Myths.  He defined myths as "images with which we make sense of the world."  I find extending that definition from myths to religions is not unreasonable.

@AndreiVolkov : Have you ever heard about a concept called "straw man"?

Yes, sure. Why?

As a buddhist follower myself, shouldnt this current religion teach you about tolerance? and acceptance?
Why be angry about the lies told to you, reject it in your mind and you will be free from it.
Just like what Buddha had said, what happens when you reject a gift from a person? it goes back to them. same thing here. reject the lies and its goes back to them.
The fact that you are still angry only point to 1 thing. You had unconsciously accepted the lies.
Being truly free, as in Buddhist teaching is not to hate whatever pass you have but to move forward with the new path you choose.
Ultimately, the choice is yours. Let it go and free yourself.

(This is not really a prescriptive answer, just a few questions that perhaps could shed some light on your feelings. Furthermore, I'm just another person curious about Buddhism, so take what I wrote with a lump of salt.)

How do I get rid of hatred and tolerate other people spreading lies?

My suggestion is to try and understand why the liar (in your case, some of the religious followers) chose to lie to you and others.
You say, it is "to fulfill material desires", but have you tried "stepping into their shoes", as unpleasant as it may sound, and considering what former struggles, traumas and bad influences of the past made that person value material desires so much at present?
No human being is born in sin. Have they ever struggled with money or popularity when they were younger? Were they raised in a very religious and conservative family and were forced to take the same world view as their family and mentors?
I believe that if you succeed in seeing how their innocent youth got bruised and transformed by the imperfect world around them, your hatred will slowly transform into compassion and understanding.

I think this is a great chance to practise compassion (in Buddhism, this is one of the four brahmaviharas or sublime states, known as karuna or compassion).
There's the story of a Japanese soldier who hid in the jungle during World War 2. Even after the war was over, he remained in hiding in the jungle for decades. Then one day, he came out, still in fear, but discovered that the war was over a long time ago. Wouldn't you feel compassion for this soldier instead of contempt, because you understood the reason why he hid in the jungle? It's due to his fear and ignorance.
If you have a grandmother suffering from senile dementia, who sometimes lashes at you, would you be angry towards her or would you be compassionate? Surely, you would be compassionate towards her, because you understand that she is behaving in this way due to her medical condition.
Similarly, try to understand the background and motivations of those people who practise the other religion. Perhaps, they choose their beliefs and practices simply because they blindly trust their parents' teachings, and they are afraid to consider anything else, due to fear of divine retribution or due to fear of temptation by an imaginary invisible malevolent being. Then you would have compassion for them.

ok. I can understand you. It's not a matter of your past religion, and it's a matter of your thinking pattern. if you can stop your thoughts flood then there is no any mind disasters now you already have.
here is a small solution for it. just see your thoughts are arising and seas but don't accept it or reject it. just let it to come let it to be and let it to go with using your mindfulness and wise consideration.But don't be a part of that thinking pattern. touch the silence in between two thoughts. be mindful only to attach to that. then all your thoughts will vanish. then you free from the problem. be sure to  practice meditation on breathing continuesly to stop unwanted thoughts you have.

So, what is the strategy when you see the lies and ignorance around. Do you keep quiet as not to get into a debate to keep the 'Right Speech' or do you get into arguments?

Nowadays I usually keep quite. Their opinions and ideas are not my problem, and I don't want to make it my problem. The story of holding on to hot coal and burning oneself helped a lot. Also, realising that no matter what I would do there would be no end to whatever opinions or ideas, cause there are too many. It's infinite, endless. The only solution is to not get involved.
That would be my suggestion to you: don't to get involved. Care for your own mind and let them be with theirs.
Peace.

You say, "The belief that there is some benevolent God in heaven who basically wishes good of me and is going to help me be happy if I pray him. This caused me lot of harm. Emotionally and otherwise to my life itself. –"
First I would like to say I am sorry that someone in your Christian past taught you something that Christians do NOT believe. A cursory study of Reformed Theology would show you that actual Christians do not believe in such a God as you have described. There are prosperity preachers and other aberrant teachings that spread vacuous lies and untruth under the guise of Christianity- and they burn like wildfire through many under-educated congregations.
Being angry about it is frustrating, infuriating, and rather pointless as it only hurts you and keeps you from moving forward. At some point in each of our lives we have to make a choice to only own our own stuff if we want to move forward emotionally, psychologically, and attain a level of peaceful happiness.
Each one of us must choose what we believe. A lot of people think that indoctrination trumps choice but it does not if you are even a modest thinker.
You can choose today to let it go. You can acknowledge it, and accept it as part of your past and move forward with your studies and practices in Buddhism unfettered from the anger your feel regarding your previous religious experience - accept that the people who are part of your past who still practice their faith are, like you, seekers along the way trying to find their own place in the universe and their own understanding of peace, joy, happiness, and love.
We are complicated beings, but the vast majority of people all pretty much want the same things.
Moment by moment we all choose how we will respond, how we will think, how we will love or withhold love - keep choosing peace, love, unity, and joy.
Blessings,
Robin

In a subsequent comment the OP said their previous religion was Hinduism (not Christianity).

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What is the best strategy to confront Non-Buddhist ideology?
I am sure everybody in this world thinks that 'my religion is the only true religion' etc and its variables. As we live in a diverse society, in today's age of information we invariably bump into people or places, online or offline, with ideologies which totally contradict Buddhist beliefs.
What is the best strategy to deal with such situations? Should we keep silence and ignore and let them live in their ignorance or should we confront and try to explain the Dhamma to them?
In the latter situation, it always ends up in heated debates about the existence of god and its near impossible to explain a non-Buddhist that soul doesn't exist and that self is an illusion.
What do you do?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

There's an apocryphal Christian story, that I heard or read long ago -- where somebody asks someone else (possibly a Buddhist):

Have you ever thought of becoming a Christian?

... to which the person replies:

If you mean a good Christian, like your Christ -- I don't have the courage.
But if you mean being a bad Christian, like you -- I wouldn't want to be!

If you want to be persuasive (about the benefits and/or truths of Buddhism) perhaps it's important to be a good Buddhist.
I don't want to criticise but "ending up in heated debates about the existence of God" doesn't sound attractive or persuasive to me.
I'm particularly afraid of someone's thinking, "if being a Buddhist means being like you, I wouldn't want to be!"

I once tried to explain Buddhism (not in a "confrontational" way) -- see How to explain what Buddhism is? -- and I don't think I was very successful.
Still I hope I learned from that, that there are many different aspects of Buddhism: and different aspects appeal to or make sense to different people.
The Buddha was especially skilled at knowing different people and speaking accordingly.
It may be that the topics of God, Soul, and Self are especially important to you -- for what it's worth or for example, I don't see that as the most important doctrine.
A friend once told me a bit about communication theory, saying that when people choose a topic of conversation, then talking about what's far away (distant) is less intimate than what's close (here); that what's in the past or future is less intimate than what's now; and that talking about people we don't know, and/or talking about friends, is less intimate than talking about ourselves.
It seems to me that talking about "God" is very distant. Perhaps it's too easy to argue about something you can't see!
If you want to talk about Buddhism maybe it's better to consider aspects of Dharma like Ehipassiko, perhaps like the Kalama sutta.

Five more things.
One is that I tend to assume "good faith".
My parents professed Christianity when I was young. I don't think they were doing that in order to deceive me.
I assume they had some reason[s] for their belief[s] and that the words they spoke had some meaning[s] to them, even if those words didn't wholly make "real" sense to me.
So if I were going to engage in a conversation about God and Soul and so on, I think my participation ought to include my being interested in finding out or understanding what those words mean to someone, and why they use them and so on.1
Conversely, if I'm not interested in doing that, then it's maybe not a topic of conversation I should engage in.
The second is that (when I was young and they were trying to indoctrinate me) I was willing to believe all kinds of doctrines. Or if not believe, at least not dispute. "So, God wants us to love our neighbour as ourself? Well sure, why not. Good doctrine, more or less. And God loves us? That's nice to know, thanks for saying so. And there's a resurrection and an afterlife? Well, OK: if you say so." There was one bit of doctrine though that I couldn't manage. The way it was taught at that time was, "The Church has a monopoly on the Truth: what the Church teaches is true, and everything/everyone else (including every other religion) is wrong." And I thought, that bit of doctrine was just too much: "So, 'the Annunciation', OK, 'the Trinity, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Heaven' ... whatever, OK: if you say so. But 'everyone else is wrong'? That's incredible! Impossible!" And I think that maybe Buddhism too warns against being a sectarian who argues in this way ("This alone is true") about the dhamma.
The third is that I guess (if you'll excuse my saying so) that your "heated debates" are motivated by some form of conceit, specifically comparing yourself to others: "I'm Buddhist and they're not. My being Buddhist means I know the Dhamma, whereas they are living in ignorance." That's maybe not something you want to perpetuate (even when the debate is whether 'self' is an illusion).
Fourth, if you are arguing online that's maybe even less sensible/effective than face-to-face (xkcd).
Fifth, IMO the "ideologies which totally contradict Buddhist beliefs" are for example the ideologies which involve killing -- or lying, and so on. If you understand that kind of doctrine to be the "bottom line", you might decide most people are agreeable or "very civilized".
1Maybe you can see this sort of attitude here, i.e. I like to assume that I'm at least a little ignorant about another person's views.

The actual Buddhist way is to keep silence and ignore and let them live in their manner. The question asked isn't actually an issue in Theravada Buddhism. The Pali teachings literally say to only teach Dhamma to those who are interested and attentive (AN 9.5; MN 26; etc).
Also, since "self" is an illusion, why would there be any reason for arguments & debates?

Telling other people that what they do wrong and even more that what they believe is wrong does not work well. I barely works when supported with facts, but as religion is about belief, it will work even less. It is better to lead by good example and an open discussion. Show similarities and listen to them. I am not confessed to any religion, but I can very well understand how people benefit from a religion when discussing it in such a way instead of more agressive persuasion.

In my experience, every religion seems to be based on the same deep fondation of widsom.
The diffences are superficial. Believing in a god for instance should not be considered a bad thing if it helps people to live moraly and to adhere to this wisdom or to pursue it.
I would only confront people whith their ideas if they take religion as an excuse to do bad things, by encouraging them to reflect on their actions.
Afterall, there are a lot of people in ths world. Everyone thinks differently and thus a religion that suits you will not and should not suit everyone, that's why there are so many of them.
So I would say to stay out of the debate as long as it is about the superficial aspects of a religion (aka beliefs), and engage into it only if you feel like people would commit ubskillful actions in the name of it, as something is likely not well understood from their perspective and I am lileky to make a difference without contradicting their beliefs.

One of the answers on how do you confront a different religion is that you really don't.
There is no need to confront anything and anyone. Dalai Lama points out that nearly all religions have the same potential, message and goal; the wish to bring the world to better conditions and make humanity more compassionate is shared amongst all of them.
We can all work towards a similar better aim, there isn't any need for elitism and feelings of superiority. We can have fruitful conversations rather than painful quarrels.
From my perspective, apart from my wife, none of the people I know, and especially friends of mine, have a clue that I am a Buddhist. If prompted for an answer all I say is I want to be a better person, and meditate to purify my mind and to be a better human being. That works and serves as a middle ground; we don't have to march out with labels, sings and other things. We can keep that away as signs and labels are distractions, we should go forth beyond them, with no attachment to them, ready to let go of them for greater good.
If Christians feel that there is a soul - fine, I cannot really deny it, although I cannot really find it either, through my own experience. The point being is that it takes to shred ego down to have compassionate possibility and ability of dialogue, to discuss real stuff, rather than going about pillars of doctrine in a dualistic, divisive realm of signs. At that level of discussion it all aims towards the same direction, typically, which is liberation from suffering.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Should we keep silence and ignore and let them live in their ignorance or should we confront and try to explain the Dhamma to them?

What comes to my mind is the story of Buddha not really being keen on teaching others.
(From the Pāsarāsi sutta [MN 26].)

‘Enough with teaching the Dhamma That even I found hard to reach; For
  it will never be perceived By those who live in lust and hate.
Those dyed in lust, wrapped in darkness Will never discern this
  abstruse Dhamma Which goes against the worldly stream, Subtle, deep,
  and difficult to see.’
Considering thus, my mind inclined to inaction rather than to teaching
  the Dhamma. ... '

So, I guess there are several factors.
Is the other person just spouting his/her own opinions and idea's or really open to discussion? Does (s)he want to hear something contrary to own belief?
Of course also relevant: what is your own motivation? Why do you want to confront and explain? Is it truly out of compassion or is it just wanting?
How does trying to convince someone else help you? Does it make your mind peaceful or is it disquieting?
In my own little world of experience it's is more peaceful to stay out of discussions, opinions, confrontation and so forth.
Hope this helps a bit.

Please compare "inclined to inaction rather than to teaching" with examples contrary to it. The buddha did, after all, preach/teach to all kinds of people many times for many years. Is the above quote really representative of the budhha's views?

@Jonathan Imho. it is. There is a difference between 1. being eager to teach others, having this outward going attitude and 2. being inclined towards inaction and only teach when someone else asks for a teaching. Hope this helps.

Whether ideas should be confronted to start with depends on the type of idea. It depends on whether they fuel virtue or non-virtue (such as anger, for instance) and it depends on how it leads one to act.
"Black people are lesser than white people" is an idea. "The gods want us to sacrifice goats, and if we do so, we will be able to cross the sea to go back home" is another. It is not hard to see how non-virtuous these ideas are.
In Buddhism, facts matters to the extent that we suffer because we do not see things the way they are (when we conceive of what is impermanent as being permanent... suffering as happiness... impure as pure... empty as having a self, etc), however, being a good Christian is better than being a bad Buddhist.
Hence, the question is not primarily "Is this idea factually concordant or not?" but "Is this idea wholesome and does it lead to wholesome actions or not?". It can also be "Is the way that person relates to this idea wholesome?". This is because it depends as much on the idea as it depends on the way we relate to them.
Anyway, it doesn't answer your question: what is the best strategy?
I think of two of them:
The first is to be an example of virtue, compassion, wisdom, and discipline yourself. It is the best way to inspire others: for them to want to become more like you, without you have to "preach" anything.
The second is to put efforts to build a trust relationship before. Without such a relationship, none will hear what you say to start with.
In any case, you need to be patient, and you need to restrain yourself from speaking to quickly. Take the time to know where she stands first. Take time to hear her instead of assuming from the start.
"Patience" can be a third strategy. Together with humility, it's a good ground for listening and understanding.

For this answer, I'm going g to draw on a story from a non Buddhist tradition.
There is a Jewish story, that a skeptical passerby asked a very famous Jewish teacher (rabbi) to explain Judaism while standing on one leg. The answer was roughly, "what is hateful/seems wrong (to you) do not do it to others. This is the core, the rest is explanation."
Why do I offer this quote? Because it wasn't necessary to explain about god, or holy people, or specific laws of his religion, or anything else, to give this answer. I am sure that from all the wisdom of Buddhism, you can find a core which will be understood by others. Perhaps "Life is unpredictable and contains sorrow. Buddhism teaches that if you cannot stand aside from the sorrow,when it is your turn, and accept that this is part of the pattern of life, you will develop negative perspectives on life,and those will harm you and other living beings. Therefore, learn to be compassionate and caring for all living beings, for all suffer, and all will one day die." Or whatever wording you prefer.
But you can condense it to a description that most will understand.
Then, after that,anything else,explain that "I personally also believe that.....(other stuff), because my teachers and traditions teach me so."
The key is, the important things about Buddhism will either be able to be said in a way they can appreciate and fit into their tradition, or else it doesn't deter them from Buddhism at the least, because you've made clear they are just your personal beliefs... which they can consider, accept, learn, or sideline as they need to.

I recently had a dream in which I was fighting a man. He was a scary looking shadow - thin, tall, shaved head, aggressive. The more I fought, the stronger he got, and at some point I realized there was no way I could win. I tried to hide in my car, but he grasped my left arm and was holding it with force, making it impossible for me to close the window. He was definitely stronger than I was; with all his might he pulled me by the arm as I desperately tried to release it and close the window...
And then at some point I realized this was a dream, and thought to myself: "If this is a dream, he must be projection of my mind. In some sense he is my mind, he is part of me. This means I'm actually fighting myself! It makes sense then, that the stronger I fight the stronger he gets! But what if I, instead of fighting, try to reintegrate him back into myself?"
Having thought so, I stopped fighting and pulled the man closer so our foreheads could touch. As I did that, the man began melting, like a big black drop of mercury, like Terminator 2 in the movie. As he melted he was getting sucked into my forehead, until all of him was inside me. I woke up feeling I have solved the puzzle.

The best way to confront non-Buddhist ideology is by accepting and assimilating it. There is no need to fight or argue. There is always a way to accept other teachings' descriptions - and interpret them in the Buddhist sense.
God can be explained as either Dharmakaya or Alaya-Vijnana. Soul and spirit can be explained as continuity of informational causation.
There is absolutely no reason to fight, since all these different religions are alienated parts of Sat-Dharma, like that shadow man in my dream.

Confrontation, hatred of your previous religion and negative judgement are not in keeping with Buddhist teachings.
At the moment it sounds as if you're having difficulty dealing with a lot of personal conflicts and are new to Buddhism.
I don't doubt your commitment but perhaps you would be best learning what Buddhism is to you before attempting to teach others.

'It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles'

To best represent Buddhism to non-Buddhists be sure that teaching Buddhism is your true intention. I'd recommend avoiding these confrontations until you're sure of what Buddhism means to you and can better represent the beliefs encompassed within it.
This is true for all religions but followed by few - it isn't only Buddhism that gets misrepresented by those who try to teach before they have truly learned.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Did Buddha ever get angry after enlightenment?
I'm exploring the nature of anger, so want to know.

As well as When did the Buddha get angry?, see also Was the Buddha harsh? and Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?

Anger(Patigha/Byāpāda) is uprooted at the stage of Anagami. So it's technically impossible for any being who has attained Anagami or above to get angry, let alone the Buddha.

Can you cite some reference on this?

Read the fetters cut off by Anagamis. Linked it.


text:
What is anger. How it is different from violence?
I want the differences between the two, followed by their definitions?

See also What is the etymology of “byāpāda”

Anger refers to a mental state. Violence usually refers to a destructive or harmful physical action caused by an angry mental state. Both are originating from the defilment called Dosa(aversion).

You tagged the question fetters, and therefore perhaps the "anger" you're referring to is byāpāda or perhaps it's paṭigha.
I'm not sure what "violence" is (i.e. what word it is, whose definition you want). There is a chapter in the Dhammapada whose title is translated as Violence, that's the Daṇḍavagga in Pali, i.e. "the chapter about daṇḍa" -- see a definition here.

Violence is like setting another person or thing on fire. Anger is like setting yourself on fire.

I just found a  sutta about angry men and women
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/07_sevens/an07.060.than.ati.htm

Does it explain the difference between violence and anger?


text:
How do I refute the claim that the Buddha was actually preaching Vedanta?
Some people are obsessed with making a great personality and revolutionary like the Buddha a follower of their own faith by making baseless, historically inaccurate and factually incorrect claims. One such claim is that Buddha was a Hindu Yogi who actually preached Vedanta. How do I refute this claim?

OP specifically invited @SankhaKulathantille to kindly answer this question.

You gotta understand the Pali suttas first. An example of refuting Vedanta is at this link: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=32435

This is a modified version of the answer that I posted on Hinduism.SE comparing the Buddhist Madhyamaka (by Nagarjuna) and the Hindu Advaita Vedanta (by Adi Shankara). Usually, the emptiness in Madhyamaka is equated to Nirguna Brahman (formless attributeless God) in Advaita by Hindu scholars like Prof. Chandradhar Sharma. Prof. Sharma also equated the Eternal Buddha concept (based on the Buddha's Dharma body) to God. I modified this answer for posting here.
First: What did Adi Shankaracharya teach?
We can see this from Adi Shankaracharya's own compositions:

Brahman is real, the universe is an illusion. The jiva is Brahman
  itself and not different. (Brahmajnanavalimala 20)
This Atman is a self-cognised entity because It is cognised by Itself.
  Hence the individual soul is itself and directly the Supreme Brahman,
  and nothing else. (Vivekachudamani 216)
There exists no other material cause of this phenomenal universe
  except Brahman. Hence this whole universe is but Brahman and nothing
  else. (Aparokshanubhuti 45)
The pot, wall, etc., are all nothing but clay. Likewise, the entire
  universe is nothing but Brahman. (Brahmajnanavalimala 19)
Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity, pure, supreme,
  self-existent, eternal and indivisible Bliss, not different (in
  reality) from the individual soul, and devoid of interior or exterior.
  It is (ever) triumphant. It is this Supreme Oneness which alone is
  real, since there is nothing else but the Self. Verily, there remains
  no other independent entity in the state of realisation of the highest
  Truth. All this universe which through ignorance appears as of
  diverse forms, is nothing else but Brahman which is absolutely free
  from all the limitations of human thought. A jar, though a
  modification of clay, is not different from it; everywhere the jar is
  essentially the same as the clay. Why then call it a jar ? It is
  fictitious, a fancied name merely. None can demonstrate that the
  essence of a jar is something other than the clay (of which it is
  made). Hence the jar is merely imagined (as separate) through
  delusion, and the component clay alone is the abiding reality in
  respect of it. Similarly, the whole universe, being the effect of
  the real Brahman, is in reality nothing but Brahman. Its essence is
  That, and it does not exist apart from It. He who says it does is
  still under delusion - he babbles like one asleep. This universe is
  verily Brahman - such is the august pronouncement of the Atharva Veda.
  Therefore this universe is nothing but Brahman, for that which is
  superimposed (on something) has no separate existence from its
  substratum.  (Vivekachudamani 225-231)
Therefore the universe does not exist apart from the Supreme Self; and
  the perception of its separateness is false like the qualities (of
  blueness etc., in the sky). Has a superimposed attribute any meaning
  apart from its substratum? It is the substratum which appears like
  that through delusion.  (Vivekachudamani 235)
Becoming thyself the self-effulgent Brahman, the substratum of all
  phenomena - as that Reality give up both the macrocosm and the
  microcosm, like two filthy receptacles. (Vivekachudamani 289)

The above quotes clearly show the teaching of eternalism.
Brahman is eternal, infinite, self-existent and transcendental absolute reality. Brahman is the substratum or foundation of the universe. Brahman is the material cause of the universe. Brahman is the only thing that is permanent and ultimately real, while the universe is ultimately an illusion.
The individual soul, which is a self-cognized entity, is ultimately the same as Brahman.
While Brahman is without qualities, it appears as the universe and individuals with qualities, through delusion.
This summarizes the nature of reality according to Advaita Vedanta.
Second: What did the Buddha teach?
We can see this in the Buddha's own words (Buddhavacana), from the Sutta Pitaka in Pali, which is included in the Mahayana Agamas and the Tibetan Kangyur.
It is widely speculated that some Buddhist schools teach annihilationism or nihilism, but this is not true. It is only non-Buddhists who have this wrong impression. The Buddha and 99.9% of Buddhist schools teach the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. This "middle way" teaching is the unique feature of the Buddha's teachings.
The Buddha rubbished the notion that there is no self of any kind:

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” - Attakari Sutta

However, the Buddha was very clear in the Ananda Sutta (SN44.10) that rejecting both eternalism and annihilationism,  he teaches that "all phenomena is not self", which means that there is no permanent or eternal standalone entity of a self in all phenomena (sabbe dhamma anatta).

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
  self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
  with those brahmins & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
  [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
  asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
  that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmins &
  contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
  death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by
  Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
  there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
  knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"

The Buddha instead taught that the self is not eternal and not non-existent, but is dependently originated (Pratītyasamutpāda):

When the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" -
  summarized here from Acela Sutta

A summary of dependent origination is that the self arises dependent on the inter-working of the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Please see this answer for further elaboration, including the lute analogy.
He taught that both the views of "I have a self" and "I have no self" are inaccurate in the Sabbasava Sutta. He also taught that the views of one being Nirvana, one being in Nirvana, one being apart from Nirvana, calling Nirvana "mine", and delighting in Nirvana, are inaccurate in the Mulapariyaya Sutta.
The Buddha did teach emptiness, but it is restricted to the nature of the self i.e. all phenomena is empty of a self (see Shunya Sutta). The Buddha did not comment on the nature of all non-sentient things like the universe, besides noting them as being conditioned and impermanent.
The Buddha was not interested in commenting on the nature or origin of the universe, because he considered it to be unimportant to the path to liberation from suffering - see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow (from MN63). The Buddha was not interested in metaphysical speculations. It was not because he taught the Upanishadic truths through silence, as implied by Prof. Chandradhar Sharma.
Third: What did Nagarjuna teach?
While the Buddha stopped at describing the "middle way" and emptiness with respect to the nature of the self, Nagarjuna expanded these concepts to cover the nature of the universe and all reality. He did this in his magnum opus, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, whose name itself means "Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way". Nagarjuna did not contradict the Buddha's teachings, but rather, expanded it.
The Wikipedia article on Madhyamaka (which contains its own citations) summarized Nagarjuna's teachings very well:

Central to Madhyamaka philosophy is śūnyatā, "emptiness." The term
  refers to the "emptiness" of inherent existence: all phenomena are
  empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) or inherent
  existence, because they are dependently co-arisen. At a conventional
  level, "things" do exist, but ultimately they are "empty" of inherent
  existence. But this "emptiness" itself is also "empty": it does not
  have an existence on its own, nor does it refer to a transcendental
  reality beyond or above phenomenal reality.
Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature (svabhāva) argues
  that anything which arises according to conditions, as all phenomena
  do, can have no inherent nature, for what is depends on what
  conditions it. Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there
  can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhāva), i.e. something which
  is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has
  own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor
  other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial
  existent nature (bhāva). If there is no true existent, then there can
  be no non-existent (abhāva).

Rather than the annihilationism that nothing exists or the eternalism that something exists eternally, Nagarjuna taught the "middle way" that all phenomena is empty of its own "inherent existence" or "substance" or "essence" (what he called svabhāva).
If nothing has inherent substance, then nothing can depend on something else for substance, so there is no other inherent substance (para-bhāva).
Nagarjuna's unique philosophy however, is that even this emptiness is empty i.e. this emptiness does not have its own inherent substance. This means that there is no transcendental reality beyond phenomenal reality. This is what is implied by ultimate reality not being absolute reality.
A very nice and simplified explanation of the Madhyamaka emptiness can be found in Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh's writing, "The Fullness of Emptiness".
The only disagreement between Theravada and Madhyamaka is the need to expand the "middle way" and "emptiness" beyond what the Buddha taught. What is common between Theravada and Madhyamaka is that both reject eternalism and annihilationism.
Fourth: Comparing Advaita and Madhyamaka
Comparing what Adi Shankaracharya taught and what Nagarjuna taught, we come to see very clearly that both are not the same and in fact, completely incompatible:

Shankara said Brahman is eternal and absolute. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said nothing is eternal and absolute.
Shankara's Brahman (clay analogy) implies that it is the only thing that has a true inherent substance (what Nagarjuna called svabhāva). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna says nothing has inherent substance.
Shankara's Brahman is the material cause (again, clay analogy) of the universe. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's emptiness is not a material cause for anything including itself.
Shankara said that the universe depends on Brahman as its substratum (what Nagarjuna called para-bhāva). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said there is no other inherent substance (para-bhāva) i.e. no substratum for anything else.
Shankara's Brahman is the Ultimate Reality that is the Transcendental Absolute Reality. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's Ultimate Reality is an "emptiness of emptiness" that is devoid of transcendental or absolute reality.

What is common between Advaita and Madhyamaka is that both proclaim the non-dualism between the Ultimate Reality and the phenomenal reality. However, Advaita's Ultimate Reality is a Transcendental Absolute Reality, while Madhyamaka's Ultimate Reality is the "emptiness of emptiness" that is devoid of any transcendental or absolute reality.
My conclusion is that Adi Shankaracharya's Nirguna Brahman and Madhyamaka's "emptiness of emptiness" are not the same and in fact, completely incompatible.
This is supported by Banaras Hindu University Professor T. R. V. Murti's statement (quoted below) in this book chapter: Murti T.R.V. (1973) Saṁvṛti and Paramārtha in Mādhyamika and Advaita Vedānta. In: Sprung M. (eds) The Problem of Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedānta. Springer, Dordrecht

It has been the fashion to consider that the differences between the
  Madhyamika śūnyatā and Brahman are rather superficial and even verbal,
  and that the two systems of philosophy are almost identical. At least
  Professor Radhakrishnan thinks so, and Stcherbatsky's and Dasgupta's
  views are not very different. I hold a contrary view altogether: that
  in spite of superficial similarities in form and terminology, the
  differences between them are deep and pervasive.

Fifth: Comparing Vedanta and Buddhism
All Vedanta schools accept that Atman (soul) is eternal (according to Bhagavad Gita 2.20), and Brahman is absolute and eternal. This is based on the teachings of the Upanishads.
Meanwhile, the anatman teaching subscribed by all schools of Buddhism, states that there is no eternal self (i.e. no permanent standalone eternal entity) in all phenomena.
A very apt conclusion for this comes from eminent German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a
  place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know
  now that all Hinayana (sic) and Mahayana schools are based on the
  anatma-dharma theory. ... Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta,
  just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas ... Nirvana is no
  individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic
  idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and
  without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has
  thought something different from that which since more than 2000
  years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their
  doctrine.

and

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.

by making baseless, historically inaccurate and factually incorrect
  claims.

This is what you need to focus on. You have to show them why the claims are baseless, inaccurate and incorrect, both factually and historically. If you mention their arguments in detail, we can discuss them.
Then you have to compare the core teachings of Vedanta with Buddhism and show them that they are not compatible. Ex: Hinduism talks about Atman and Brahma being the creator of the universe. Buddhism talks about Anatta and refutes creationism.
But make sure to stick to Theravada Buddhism, the school of elders when you are doing this comparison. That's generally accepted as the school closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.

VEDĀNTA vs BUDDHISM: REFUTATIONS IN RESPECTIVE LITERATURE
[Many Hindu Gurus/Swamis/Pundits/Scholars opine that the Buddha taught something that is already found in Vedic/Upaniṣadic literature. However, in the following excerpted article, the author shows how Buddhist masters such as Sāntarakṣīta and Hindu Vedāntic gurus such as Ādi Samkharācārya have refuted each other’s view in their respective literature. Since Vedānta is based on Upaniṣadic literature, this shows that Buddhism in definitely not a branch of Vedic/Brāmanical Hinduism. Buddhism considers Vedāntic view as a wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi)(because it is an eternalist view or sāsvatavāda), which doesn’t not bring realization/enlightenment.].
“Vedānta is based on the Upaniṣads…. Shankarācārya (also known as Sankara), who was from the 8th century, is the most famous commentator of the Upanishads, and today, the majority of the Hindus follow his commentaries. In the Bodhāyana commentary, according to him, the hermeneutic of the Upanishads existed even before his time.
  Although he was from around the 8th century, he became popular among the Hindus only after the 10th century when one of his lineage holders, Vācaspati Misra, wrote a sub-commentary on his commentary. Today, Shankarācārya is considered among the greatest Hindu philosophers and even educated Hindus in India subscribe to him. However, since he became well known only after the 10th century, no Buddhist scholars like Sāntideva, Śāntarakṣita, Ratnākarasānti, Jñānagarbha, etc., seem to mention him or refute him in their work.
Śāntarakṣita has however refuted the Upanishadic non-dualism in the Tattva Sangraha’ chapter 7, section 5. In his refutation of the Upanishadic view he has referred to the followers of the Upanishad as those who postulate that the ātmā is eternal, one and of the nature of knowledge/conciousness/ Jñānasvarūpa. Kamalaśīla has also commented on this view describing it as,

“That is the ātmā is of the nature of one eternal consciousness / knowledge.”

Indeed, both Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla are refuting almost the same view that Sankarācārya postulates although neither Śāntarakṣita nor Kamalaśīla mentions his name or his work. It is important to understand that according to Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, the Upanishadic view is that there is a non-dual consciousness or a non-dual knowledge which is eternal and this is the ātmā or this is called the ātmā. It is important to understand that Śāntarakṣita himself has refuted 6 different interpretations of the ātmā as accepted in Hinduism in his time. This non-dual cognition / consciousness / knowledge which is eternal (nitya) is one of the ātmā-s refuted by Śāntarakṣita in his ‘Tattva Sangraha’. This ātmā is not dualistic; therefore it is not vijñāna (Tib. rnam-shes). It is non-dual and it is eternal. It is called jñāna (ye-shes/knowledge) by Śāntarakṣita, who used the very word the Upanishad and Sankarācārya uses.
This is how Śāntarakṣita refuted this view:

“The error in the view of these philosophies is a slight one – due only to the assertion of eternality of cognition.”

There is, however, a slight difference between this Upanishadic view refuted here by Śāntarakṣita and Sankarācārya’s Upanishadic view. Sankara’s view is called Maya-Vivartavād – i.e. the illusionist. The view refuted by Śāntarakṣita is called parināmavāda – modificationist. The difference is that this view considers the 5 elements, etc., and the world as illusory modifications of this non-dual eternal cognition / consciousness, while Sankara interprets the world and its 5 elements, etc., as illusory and therefore non-existent and this non-dual eternal cognition as separate from the illusion.
Sankarācārya even mentions the exact opposite view of what Śāntarakṣita mentioned above and refutes him. In exact opposite of what Śāntarakṣita says,

“The error in the view of these philosophers is a slight one – due only to the assertion of eternality of cognition.”

Sankara says about the Cittamātra

“The error in the view of these philosophies is only slight – they believe the non-dual mind as changing moment to moment; we believe it as unchanging eternal.”

The Hindu ātmā is not only non-dual cognition but is also unchanging, eternal, and truly existing. Sankarācārya defines existence (sat) in his Tattvaboda as that which remains the same in all the 3 times (past, present, future). In the commentary by Gaudapāda (who was Sankarācārya’s Guru’s Guru), of the Māndukya Upanishada, in verse number 96, he calls the eternally really existing non-dual cognition is non-relational, i.e., free from reference points. In the 37th verse of the same work it is said that this non-dual, eternal, really existing cognition is free from all sense organs, i.e., free from the dualistic mind (namshe). So, the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the ātmā, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankarācārya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Śāntarakṣita as a wrong view."
~ Excerpted from "Vedanta vs Shengtong" by Acarya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche.

More on hindooism and buddhism differences can be found here.

The Buddha avatar was contextual, aimed at ridding the attachment to the karmas prescribed in the Mimamsa portions of the Vedas, to the utter neglect of the need totranscrndthem and realise oneself.  Karma presupposes a doer and a God dispensing rewards in return.  To enjoy the benefits of reward, another birth is needed, this cycle goes on endlessly.  Sankara advised karmas as a kind of scaffolding for a search within.  This helps the mind to concentrate, through detachment from the results of karma.  The scaffolding must be discarded, if the building has to be occupied.  Therefore, Buddha helped to put karmas in better light, Sankara sculpted the idea into the homogenous concept of Advaita.  For this, He was called a ‘prachhanna Buddha’ by some contemporaries.


text:
How to refute the claim that the Buddha was an "avatar" of Vishnu?
We as Buddhists know that Gautama Buddha didn't believe in a Supreme Being or an universal soul. We also know that the Buddha criticised the Vedic/Astik shastras, rejected the Vedic religion and the Astik school of thought, and challenged the hegemony of the Brahmans. But what about the people who claim that the Buddha was actually preaching the "Sanatan Dharma" as he was an "avatar" of Vishnu?
The late S. Radhakrishnan, former President of India who was also a Brahman, claimed that the Buddha was actually preaching Hinduism:
"Famous Indian Hindu scholars like the ex-President of India the late S. Radhakrishnan stated: 'The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization'" (2500 Years of Buddhism, 1971, Government of India)
While Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution and one of the greatest Buddhist personalities of India, called this belief "sheer madness and false propaganda".
Hence how do I refute this claim that Gautama Buddha was an incarnation of the hindoo deity Vishnu?

Check this question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28302/what-is-the-best-strategy-to-confront-non-buddhist-ideology

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not a Buddhist claim; and if it is a Hindu claim, then it's off-topic on this site.

The easy way:
Ask for scriptural evidence for the claim. There is no reference in any Hindoo scripture as an evidence to this.
The difficult way:
Show that it is not possible using Buddhist ideas of Annata.
Easiest way:
Stay away from these arguments. I know where this is coming from. This is not disprovable or provable no matter how much you argue.

Like @Friedrick say, just stay away from those useless arguments.
And remember one thing: the Dharma is not for arguing.

Arguments are inevitable, running away from arguments and reasoning is not the Way of Buddha... we as Buddhists need to remove ignorance and bring facts for people to see

@Supravat, " Buddhists need to remove ignorance and bring facts for people to see " it's also useless. If they keep arguing about dharma.


text:
Can an objective criticism of somebodies work, which might hurt feelings, violate 'Right Speech' precept?
If we write or verbally express an objective criticism of someone's work, for e.g. if I write a bad(but honest) review of my friends movie, or if I tell my friend that I don't like her cooking (instead of lying to keep her mind), or if I tell an honest truth to someone about something related to him/her, but if in all these situations the words will cause hurtful feelings to the other, will that constitute 'wrong speech' adding up to bad karma or not?
Note: I will be telling truth in all situations as perceived by me. And the intention here is not to do harm but just to express my feelings.

MN58 Abhaya Sutta:

(1) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual/untrue, unbeneficial, and unendearing/disagreeable [i.e. painful - AV]  to others -- he does not say them.
(2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true but
  unbeneficial and unendearing/disagreeable to others -- he does not say
  them.
(3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true and
  beneficial, but unendearing/disagreeable to others -- he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
(4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual/untrue, unbeneficial, and yet endearing/agreeable to others -- he does not
  say them.
(5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true,
  unbeneficial, and endearing/agreeable to others -- he does not say
  them.
(6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true, and
  beneficial, and endearing/agreeable to others -- he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Also:

It's as if a man were shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot with the arrow, he would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon. The surgeon would cut around the opening of the wound with a knife. As a result of the surgeon's cutting around the opening of the wound with a knife, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would probe for the arrow with a probe. As a result of the surgeon's probing for the arrow with a probe, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then pull out the arrow. As a result of the surgeon's pulling out the arrow, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then apply a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of the surgeon's applying a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. But then at a later time, when the wound had healed and was covered with skin, he would be well & happy, free, master of himself, able to go wherever he liked. The thought would occur to him, "Before, I was shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot with the arrow, I felt fierce, sharp, racking pains. My friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives provided me with a surgeon... The surgeon cut around the opening of the wound with a knife... probed for the arrow with a probe... pulled out the arrow... applied a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of his applying a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, I felt fierce, sharp, racking pains. But now that the wound is healed and covered with skin, I am well & happy, free, master of myself, able to go wherever I like."

Can an objective criticism of somebodies work, which might hurt feelings, violate 'Right Speech' precept? -- Yes, it can: 1) if it is not beneficial; 2) if it is not said at the proper time.

Good citation! Interesting how the category of untrue/unfactual, but beneficial was left out altogether.

That would constitute lying isn't it! So would be wrong speech that ways.

@FriedrickNietzsche Perhaps the comment on "unfactual but beneficial" was an allusion to upaya.

Potaliya, four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world.
  What four kinds?  The four kinds are:
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth,
  at the proper time, but do not praise those who should be praised,
  according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people praise those who should be praised, according to the
  truth, at the proper time, but do not blame those who should be
  blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the
  truth, at the proper time, and do not praise those who should be
  praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth,
  at the proper time, and praise those who should be praised, according
  to the truth, at the proper time.
Potaliya, these four kinds of people exist and can be found in the
  world.  Of these four kinds of people, that kind should be the most
  fair and right, the most refined, to you?
Venerable Lord Gotama, of all those four kinds of people, the kind of
  person who does not blame those who should be blamed, according to the
  truth, at the proper time, and does not praise those who should be
  praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; is the kind of
  person who is the most beautiful and refined to me.  What is the
  reason for this?  Because this is fair and right with upekkha
  (equanimity).
Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever kind of person
  blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the
  proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the
  truth, at the proper time; this kind of person is the most beautiful
  and refined of these four kinds of people.  What is the reason for
  this?  It is fair and right because such a one knows the right time in
  those circumstances.
AN 4.100

most important thing is what is the purpose of saying or doing something. If you are doing something without defilement then it is OK. (ex. anger) also it should give a right benefit for both side.

" And the intention here is not to do harm but just to express my feelings " you already answered your question, if your intention is not harm, that it. You do nothing wrong then. If someone is intentionally say something to hurt someone that will be add bad karma.


text:
How can we stop overthinking?
Many people suffer because of an endless mind-thoughts. What is the simplest way to stop overthinking and make the mind still?

mind-thoughts? All thoughts are mental

Try reading 'The Happiness Trap', good read on this subject

if could explain what exactly what is meant by the word 'overthinking' cf 'thinking', and also whats meant by 'thinking' in this context, could be helpful. thank you  :)

As a person with obsessive thought disorder I might shed some light on this issue.
The very fact that you are overthinking is that you are clinging to resolving an issue you believe is of highest importance at the moment, as Andrei Volkov already wrote.
What you might do is to be mindful of obsessiveness as it comes. Label it "Obsessiveness." and continue with your mindful gate keeping. Don't let scattered thoughts (vicàra) roam freely unnoticed. Try to let only wholesome and directed thoughts (vitakka) free. It is the case of a habit.
It is mostly the issue that such thoughts of overthinking take on subjects that aren't important or even difficult to solve with calm and clear mind, so along with mindfulness of thoughts please add concentrating on breathing. Do not try to tackle such thoughts in the state of confusion, as you will be like a man standing on the deck of the ship in the middle of the sea storm - you don't want to be out in such conditions, it is far better to keep yourself safe inside the ship and wait for better conditions.
No matter how tempting it is to continue inner chatter or how critical it might seem - let go of the need. As what they say: Don't try to talk with the madman - it is not going to work.
Bonus: Ajahn Sumedho - Let Go, Let Go, Let Go

Wrestling the mind with the mind generally just makes more chaos.  You could torture yourself to death wondering why you are thinking this or that when you should be thinking this or that. What a mess.
Instead, consider the Satipatthana Sutta which starts with the body:

Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'

As you do this, you will notice that simply being aware of the breath may result in longer breaths. As this awareness deepens, so will your breath. Oddly, a side effect of this awareness is that overthinking gently evaporates effortlessly.
The sutta continues in this clear, deliberate manner. Eventually it does touch on mind and delusion, but only much later. After body. After feeling.

TL;DR: "The simplest way to stop overthinking" is to let go of importance.
The way my teacher explained this, some thought-patterns can be seen as quasi-living beings, relying on human carriers for their survival. These thought-patterns (he called them "maras") capture our attention by appealing to our sense of importance. By thinking about them and acting out these thoughts in verbal and physical action, we provide maras (~memes, informational quasi-beings) with sustenance and help them propagate to the new carriers. In some sense the thought-patterns can be seen as mental parasites, feeding on human thought energy, propagating through social- and mass-media and virally from carrier to carrier. Much of our stress and overthinking comes from internalizing the thought-patterns as our own opinions!
Maras work by narrowing the carrier's attention: "this is all-important and nothing else is important". Liberation from maras requires letting go of the sense of importance they use to capture the carrier's attention.
To break through a mara's bubble of narrowed attention, we have to make an effort to deliberately expand our attention: "this is not all-important! Here are some other things that are truly important: A, B, C".
I was also taught some somatic exercises that help re-expanding one's narrowed attention:

Tapping the feet. Lay on your back or sit, and stretch your legs forward. Tap your feet sideways on one another for 5-15 minutes.
Peripheral vision. Move your eyes from side to side and/or roll them, to expand your awareness of the peripheral vision.

In my own experience the most effective technique is to simply recognize a mara as a mara and stop identifying with the thought-pattern it represents. The very act of realizing that a particular thought-pattern with its sense of all-importance is an extraneous construct that we don't have to believe in, strips the mara of its power and brings back equanimity.

A few practical things you can do to help:

Recognize that thinking, and particularly thinking too much, is normal, and that there is also nothing wrong with thinking negatively. This avoids the downward cycle of 'I'm stressed, then I'm stressed about being stressed'
Given that overthinking is normal, you can also seek out mindfulness techniques (I'd recommend ACT and CBT)
Beyond that there are physiological things you can do: cut down on stimulants like caffeine and alcohol, get regular exercise and sleep

Overall, the biggest thing is to accept that negative thought patterns are how we're built, and that there's nothing wrong with feeling bad from time to time. I would also definitely recommend checking out the above mindfulness techniques.

From the Mogharājamāṇavapucchā Sutta • The Young Man Mogharāja’s Questions :
https://suttacentral.net/snp5.16/en/anandajoti
“So, to the One With Excellent Sight, I have come in need with a question:
Looking on the world in what way does the king of Death not see one?”
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.”

The question is how to manage overthinking?
Overdue thinking and late thinking can stop by planning.
Over wrong view thinking and wrong decision can stop by right view thinking practice.
Over five-strings thinking can stop by upacara/appana-jhana and can cease by vipassana.
Over right view thinking (vipassana-upakkilesa) can relax by upacara/appana-jhana.
Overall suffering can cease by Nibbana. And the practitioner can attain Nibbana by adhisila+adhicitta+adhipanna.

Overthinking is a issue where You’re Thinking about your own little world that you’re closed in. You have to come out of the world that you made for yourself and you’re swimming in it. Overthinking is a Huge issue and affecting the lives of people of every age group and especially it’s Affecting the lives of Teenagers and Young.
Overthinking actually affects your IQ and overthinking is a issue that can Destroy your life. In Studies of Stanford, according to scientific basis, Overthinking reduce Creativity and Slowdown Mental Growth. Overthinking Reduce the efficiency of neurons.
According to Scientific Researches, Daily 70,000 Thoughts comes to our mind where 95% Thoughts are Useless.
Such that Overthinking is a Huge issue and needed to be cure. These Days people are talking about Physical Illness but no one is talking about mental illness like Depression, Anxiety, Stress, Overthinking etc. Overthinking can lead you to Depression, Anxiety and Stress.
Here you can Learn How to overcome Overthinking by 7 Step with a Bonus with a Story and all other facts and things that help you to overcome from that so Must read it.
How to Stop Overthinking and relax | Enrich Success

This is what I do

Increasing your daily  exercise rate bit by bit. The more exercise you do, the more effective. Your body is releasing endorphin to make your body relax and happy. So, its naturally get rid of endless mid thought.  Best to be in surrounding in nature. Buddha is a smart person, why do u think he liked to be in jungle. I used to walk 20k steps per day to have full effectiveness but its a interim solution. Below in the picture has more example.

While you are doing no.1 above, dont waste your interim mindfulness and relax state. Study Buddhism, find your root cause and fix it. This will be the permanent solution and fastest ways as I know of but you need a lot of practices and wisdom in it.

You want my thoughts on that? Sorry I can't show you here. Indulging in my thoughts and opinions on this topic isn't going to be productive, I'm afraid.
I refuse to answer.
Try body-scan or mindful yoga maybe.


text:
How should I stop my craving for money and people?
I have strong craving for money and people because I consider them basic for survival. But I know money is not going to stay with me forever and people are not going to stay with me forever. I have developed a fear of loosing people and money.
My question is : How should I stop my craving for money and people ?

Question is too broad. Please narrow it down by adding e.g. particular tradition or what kind of answer you are looking for.

Donate as much as you can to counter your greed.
Do Marananussati or Patikulamanasikara or Satipatthana meditation to counter the craving towards people.

I think you are tackling it off the wrong foot.
There isn't much merit in trying to cut off (or stop) the craving, for it only brings misery and great dissatisfaction of the present moment. The Buddhist way is keeping in mind the Right resolve while abandoning Wrong resolve, keeping in mind Right livelihood and abandoning Wrong livelihood, keeping in mind Right action and abandoning Wrong action. All of this on case by case bases, as you cannot magically grab a wand and get rid yourself of all the afflictions; attempt of doing it so drastically gives you only extent of self-mortification which Buddha disproved of.
Thinking about how joyful future would be if you didn't have a craving and affliction is not going to help you either, but make things much worse.  You are attaching yourself to immediate progress on the path, therefore it only brings suffering. Suffering due to longing for ending of craving brings self-loathing and inner critique. You will develop unhealthy obsession which is clinging. Let go of the obsession over future and tackle the present now; when the moment approaches keep mindfulness so that you act rightfully with generosity and plant the good seed in your mind. Planting good seeds will eventually transform your habits and afflictions as old seeds naturally wither.
As a side note, please watch Ajah Brahm's talk on Right livelihood; he says it is fine to be rich, but make money in the right way, with benefit to others, without attaching yourself to wealth too much, but treating the loss of it with wisdom. There is not much negative in wealth, but in unhealthy attachment to it, the same goes for people and self-appreciation they give. It is fine to have good company, but realise impermanence of such relationships.

Addendum.
The only way Buddhism ever worked for me personally is when I took Right effort to heart and adjusted my practise to be effortless and joyful journey. That is, I took my current level of advancement on the path and set realistic goals with boundaries that would make me practise comfortably. And then, after some time, with higher insight and realisation, I would readjust the boundary for my current level of practise, but all within the balance of comfort and effortlessness. Remind yourself of string analogy Buddha gave to Sona. After all, do you expect to become realised Arhat overnight? It takes lifetimes for laypeople to even get to moderate state of realisation, liberation and happiness. That keeping in mind that in Buddhism laypeople are of different capacity, each one has their unique way!

Nice answer but I am a complete Buddha fan. I do not believe in beating around the bush. Buddha clearly says intention of renunciation , intention of non-ill will,intention of non-cruelty are right intentions. Ultimately one has to renounce all the five aggregates as not me. Actually I should be enthusiastic about the renunciation but I am not, which shows I haven't understood Dhamma properly. Mindfulness helps everyone whether they renounce or not.

One does not need to do more than follow Eightfold path in Buddhism, cessation of craving is not to be understood on intellectual level and experienced by transformation of your habits with mindfulness, hence my answer. Intention of renunciation is in Right effort also, which is a way of adjusting your mind to achieve peace instead of torment, as practise has to be bringing joy and happiness. Why else would you practise? For which purpose if not cessation of affliction, which is here obsession, impatience and aversion? Buddhism itself is not a path of change, but liberation.

And yes, practise eventually brings change as a result of liberation from suffering and mental affliction, but change is not a goal of practise itself; in a way that the goal is not striving for change as such is just another reaffirmation of Self. We don't really have to rely on change to be happy here and now.

Just consider this,
if you need money you have to be educated and must have a job, then of course you have to work. Woke up in the morning and get on vehicle go to work and work with pressure, come back home sleep and continue this loop for long time. If you get a loan then you have to save money rather spend it on other needs, now that's very painful.
craving for people, just think about your death, it is ultimate destiny of all people which we face alone. No one else cannot help or come with us.
( this is what I've learned from the society it may be defer to others, anyway i think this would be helpful).


text:
Did the Buddha believe in rebirth and reincarnation?
The Buddha didn't believe in a Supreme Being, or a universal soul. The Buddha didn't even believe in a soul. Then how could he preach rebirth and reincarnation when he didn't even believe in a soul? What the Theravada tradition says about this? I know that the Theravada tradition is closest to the original teachings of Buddha, hence I would like to know what it says about this.

I think this question is a duplicate, already answered, of questions like Is rebirth a delusional belief? and Then where did the concept of “rebirth” come from?

The Buddha denied the existence of the soul. But he is also said to have affirmed the doctrine of karma and rebirth. At once a question arises. If there is no soul, how can there be karma? If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? Did he use the terms in a different sense than the sense in which they were used by the Brahmans of his days? If so, in what sense? Did he use them in the same sense in which the Brahmans used them? If so, is there not a terrible contradiction between the denial of the soul and the affirmation of karma and rebirth? This contradiction needs to be resolved.
First of all, it should be clear that the Buddha never used the terms in the same sense as it means in Hinduism. As far as Buddhism is concerned, there is no soul. Karma doesn't mean the hereditary passing of deeds and there results from life to life, in the context of Buddhism. Karma means action and reaction. For example, if I jump on mud, the mud will splash on me. Similarly, the meaning of rebirth doesn't mean the continuous birth of an eternal soul. This concept is a Hindu doctrine.