user21241: Historically, Buddha rejected the validity of the Vedas, I suspect there might be some differences in the way scripture is treated in Buddhism and other religions, especially Theistic ones.
For for example does Buddhism treat its scripture as the final Authority on the nature of reality?
Is something considered true just for the reason that it is said in Scripture?
Can scripture be argued with? Is it, in some sense, eternal?

user16635: Just to be thorough and clear, every faith has mystical sects, liturgical sects, and most gradations between. Mystical sects tend to treat scripture as a blueprint for spiritual attainment; liturgical sects tend to treat scripture as rock-solid revelation. Buddhism is no different. If we go to southeast Asia (or even certain communities in the US or Europe) we can find groups that take buddhist scripture as an object of reverence rather than an object of study and understanding; who light incense and ring bells and chant the names of Buddha to seek his blessing or intercession.
In the West we mainly see more mystical, philosophical forms of Buddhism. Buddhism is new to the West — it only started making inroads in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — so it hasn't had enough time for the kind of acculturation that's essential for forming liturgical communities. Western Buddhists are mainly drawn from people dissatisfied with Christian liturgical traditions; people who are interested in a deeper, more philosophical, more mystical approaches to faith, yet shy away from Christian mysticism (gnosticism, transcendentalism, Quakerism...). That should resolve itself in time.

user13709: The Buddha advocates active investigation and practice (vs. blind faith):

MN80:16.5: Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach and instruct them.
MN80:16.6: Practicing as instructed they will soon know and see for themselves,

The Buddha focuses on the Four Noble Truths regarding suffering (v.s. the nature of reality).

MN141:8.3: What four?
MN141:9.1: The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

The Buddha advocates intelligent and informed discussion (v.s. just considering it true):

AN2.47:2.4: And when they’ve learned those teachings they question and examine each other, saying:
AN2.47:2.5: ‘Why does it say this? What does that mean?’
AN2.47:2.6: So they clarify what is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and dispel doubt regarding the many doubtful matters.
AN2.47:2.7: This is called an assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk.


user471: In theistic religions, scriptures are either a form of primary revelation - an incorruptible verbatim record of the words of god(s) conveyed by prophets, or a form of secondary revelation - a divinely revealed vision seen by prophetic seers that is conveyed in their own words.
In Buddhism, the scripture mainly contains the discourses and teachings of the Buddha and his chief disciples, as recorded and passed down orally through the monastic order. The teachings of the Buddha are called the Dhamma. It is what he has left behind for his followers to guide them.
The Buddha is seen as the fully enlightened teacher, with an extraordinary ability to teach. He is not viewed as a god or an incarnation of a god. After his passing away, he is not reachable through prayers.

Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him,
saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me,
Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of
esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
to the teachings that the Tathagata (Buddha) holds to the last with
the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. ...
"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
DN 16

In Buddhism, the meaning is more important than the phrasing. In fact, to aid memorization of the Pali suttas, similar phrases or verses conveying the same meaning have been altered to become exactly the same, as explained in this answer.

Now, you might think, ‘These two venerables agree on the meaning but
disagree on the phrasing.’ So you should approach whichever mendicant
you think is most amenable and say to them: ‘The venerables agree on
the meaning but disagree on the phrasing. But the venerables should
know that this is how such agreement on the meaning and disagreement
on the phrasing comes to be. But the phrasing is a minor matter.
Please don’t get into a fight about something so minor.’
MN 103

In theistic religions, one is generally expected to have faith and unquestioningly accept the words of god(s) to be true.
In Buddhism, it's ok to question the scriptures.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
& carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
& remain in them.
Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65)

In Buddhism, the Buddha simply rediscovered the wisdom that was known to previously enlightened ones before him, but have since been forgotten.

Those who were Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened Ones in the past —
they, too, dwelled in dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring
and respecting it. Those who will be Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened
Ones in the future — they, too, will dwell in dependence on the very
Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it. And let the Blessed One,
who is at present the Arahant, the Rightly Self-awakened One, dwell in
dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it."
SN 6.2

In theistic religions, it's usually not acceptable to consider other religions to be equally true, even if they teach the exact same thing. This is because the identity of the god(s) is more important than the teachings.
In Buddhism, other religions are acceptable to be true if they teach the exact same thing as Buddhism. This is because the teachings are more important than the identity of the teacher.

And the Blessed One spoke, saying: "In whatsoever Dhamma and
Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path,
neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or
fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline
there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic
of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Now in
this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold
Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first,
second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true
ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the
bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.
DN 16

With regards to the universal truth of the laws of nature, we find the following statement about the three marks of existence.

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136


21241: <p>Historically, Buddha rejected the validity of the Vedas, I suspect there might be some differences in the way scripture is treated in Buddhism and other religions, especially Theistic ones.</p>
<p>For for example does Buddhism treat its scripture as the final Authority on the nature of reality?
Is something considered true just for the reason that it is said in Scripture?
Can scripture be argued with? Is it, in some sense, eternal?</p>
 16635: <p>Just to be thorough and clear, every faith has mystical sects, liturgical sects, and most gradations between. Mystical sects tend to treat scripture as a blueprint for spiritual attainment; liturgical sects tend to treat scripture as rock-solid revelation. Buddhism is no different. If we go to southeast Asia (or even certain communities in the US or Europe) we can find groups that take buddhist scripture as an object of reverence rather than an object of study and understanding; who light incense and ring bells and chant the names of Buddha to seek his blessing or intercession.</p>
<p>In the West we mainly see more mystical, philosophical forms of Buddhism. Buddhism is new to the West — it only started making inroads in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — so it hasn't had enough time for the kind of acculturation that's essential for forming liturgical communities. Western Buddhists are mainly drawn from people dissatisfied with Christian liturgical traditions; people who are interested in a deeper, more philosophical, more mystical approaches to faith, yet shy away from Christian mysticism (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">gnosticism</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">transcendentalism</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Quakerism</a>...). That should resolve itself in time.</p>
 13709: <p>The Buddha advocates active investigation and practice (vs. blind faith):</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn80/en/sujato#mn80:16.5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN80:16.5</a>: Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach and instruct them.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn80/en/sujato#mn80:16.6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN80:16.6</a>: Practicing as instructed they will soon know and see for themselves,</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Buddha focuses on the Four Noble Truths regarding suffering (v.s. the nature of reality).</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn141/en/sujato#mn141:8.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN141:8.3</a>: What four?<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn141/en/sujato#mn141:9.1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN141:9.1</a>: The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Buddha advocates intelligent and informed discussion (v.s. just considering it true):</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an2.47/en/sujato#an2.47:2.4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN2.47:2.4</a>: And when they’ve learned those teachings they question and examine each other, saying:<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an2.47/en/sujato#an2.47:2.5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN2.47:2.5</a>: ‘Why does it say this? What does that mean?’<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an2.47/en/sujato#an2.47:2.6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN2.47:2.6</a>: So they clarify what is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and dispel doubt regarding the many doubtful matters.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an2.47/en/sujato#an2.47:2.7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN2.47:2.7</a>: This is called an assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk.</p>
</blockquote>
 471: <p>In theistic religions, scriptures are either a form of primary revelation - an incorruptible verbatim record of the words of god(s) conveyed by prophets, or a form of secondary revelation - a divinely revealed vision seen by prophetic seers that is conveyed in their own words.</p>
<p>In Buddhism, the scripture mainly contains the discourses and teachings of the Buddha and his chief disciples, as recorded and passed down orally through the monastic order. The teachings of the Buddha are called the Dhamma. It is what he has left behind for his followers to guide them.</p>
<p>The Buddha is seen as the fully enlightened teacher, with an extraordinary ability to teach. He is not viewed as a god or an incarnation of a god. After his passing away, he is not reachable through prayers.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him,
saying: &quot;What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me,
Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of
esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
to the teachings that the Tathagata (Buddha) holds to the last with
the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. ...</p>
<p>&quot;Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 16</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In Buddhism, the meaning is more important than the phrasing. In fact, to aid memorization of the Pali suttas, similar phrases or verses conveying the same meaning have been altered to become exactly the same, as explained in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/41253/471">this answer</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now, you might think, ‘These two venerables agree on the meaning but
disagree on the phrasing.’ So you should approach whichever mendicant
you think is most amenable and say to them: ‘The venerables agree on
the meaning but disagree on the phrasing. But the venerables should
know that this is how such agreement on the meaning and disagreement
on the phrasing comes to be. <strong>But the phrasing is a minor matter</strong>.
Please don’t get into a fight about something so minor.’<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn103/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 103</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In theistic religions, one is generally expected to have faith and unquestioningly accept the words of god(s) to be true.</p>
<p>In Buddhism, it's ok to question the scriptures.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
&amp; carried out, lead to welfare &amp; to happiness' — then you should enter
&amp; remain in them.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65)</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In Buddhism, the Buddha simply rediscovered the wisdom that was known to previously enlightened ones before him, but have since been forgotten.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Those who were Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened Ones <strong>in the past</strong> —
they, too, dwelled in dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring
and respecting it. Those who will be Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened
Ones in the future — they, too, will dwell in dependence on the very
Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it. And let the Blessed One,
who is at present the Arahant, the Rightly Self-awakened One, dwell in
dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it.&quot;<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 6.2</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In theistic religions, it's usually not acceptable to consider other religions to be equally true, even if they teach the exact same thing. This is because the identity of the god(s) is more important than the teachings.</p>
<p>In Buddhism, other religions are acceptable to be true if they teach the exact same thing as Buddhism. This is because the teachings are more important than the identity of the teacher.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And the Blessed One spoke, saying: &quot;In whatsoever Dhamma and
Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path,
neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or
fourth degree of saintliness. <strong>But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline
there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic
of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.</strong> Now in
this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold
Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first,
second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true
ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the
bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 16</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>With regards to the universal truth of the laws of nature, we find the following statement about the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence" rel="nofollow noreferrer">three marks of existence</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: <strong>‘All
conditions are impermanent.’</strong></p>
<p>Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: <strong>‘All conditions are
suffering.’</strong></p>
<p>Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: <strong>‘All things are not-self.’</strong>”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a></p>
</blockquote>
