• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fruit of "We are God!"

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Sure but this is not what I'm saying. A person can go around all day claiming that a Cow is a Television all day but there is no historical, etymological and observable foundation or rational reason to say so.

But god is a subjective contextual word. Cow and television has specific definitions that religious words do not.

You cannot define another person's god based on your criteria and definition. Your view is just as subjective as mine but both have to do with context not facts.
 

aMirage

Look outside, seek and observe.
There is no reason to be defensive

You might want to look up what defensive means too.

(challenging my opinions as if they are wrong).

They are. Consequently, you're getting quite defensive for some reason.

What religion do you follow?

I don't follow any whatsoever but I am a monotheist.

The word god is throwing you off.

The word "God" has etymological and historical definitions, it doesn't mean anything you want.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You might want to look up what defensive means too.



They are. Consequently, you're getting quite defensive for some reason.



I don't follow any whatsoever but I am a monotheist.



The word "God" has etymological and historical definitions, it doesn't mean anything you want.

Hmm. I'm just eating cookies, have a pepsi, and listening to music. I don't have to work tomorrow, and had a beautiful day at church this morning.

So. I'm good.

But, anyway, monotheist. That's a broad term. What is god to you?

Yes. God can mean anything we want. I'm not understanding why you're challenging a subjective word.

Maybe saying "we are god" is funny, but why is it funny?

What is god to you to where stating "we are god" has a personal affect on you?
 

aMirage

Look outside, seek and observe.
But, anyway, monotheist. That's a broad term. What is god to you?

Supreme being, creator of the universe. It's pretty simple.

Yes. God can mean anything we want.

You can say anything and pretend it means something else but it doesn't make it so.

Maybe saying "we are god" is funny, but why is it funny?

Under both the definitions of "God" and "Gods", you're either saying that you're the supreme being or that you're a deity. Both a demonstrably false and . You can state that you're a human though and be able to provide tangible evidence for it.

What is god to you to where stating "we are god" has a personal affect on you?

Wrong question. When you say that "we are God" what you're really doing is applying another unrelated concept (atman being brahman) and applying it the supreme being, it doesn't work.

Even in Hinduism itself, it has deities (or "Gods") and it regards them as different from Brahman, etymologically.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There's one objective, Universal Consciousness, beyond and inclusive of any gods. All the rest of reality is subjective illusion.

Reality is layered. We create and successively inhabit multiple subjective levels of consciousness. We're aware only of the one we're in.
In this waking-state, we aren't gods. At another level, we may be. We dream our own realities, but, ultimately, there's only a single Unity.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hm.
Supreme being, creator of the universe. It's pretty simple.

I wasn't raised religious and never been nor understand the concept of any theistic concept of deity or being or spirit. In other words, creator as a person or being is something I do not understand.

Since god is not simple, is the god you believe a being? a spirit? something inside you? is it abrahamic? hindu? pagan?

Can you be specific?

You can say anything and pretend it means something else but it doesn't make it so.

But how do you know your definition of god is the definition of god?

How is your view not subjective?

Under both the definitions of "God" and "Gods", you're either saying that you're the supreme being or that you're a deity. Both a demonstrably false and . You can state that you're a human though and be able to provide tangible evidence for it.

Not false just subjective.

The context of the thread is not "we are a deity" nor "we are the creator" so the god you are talking about is not the same god the rest of us (non-bahai) speak of. The word god is highly contextual.

Anyone can believe god is real or a fact but that doesn't make it so.

Wrong question. When you say that "we are God" what you're really doing is applying another unrelated concept (atman being brahman) and applying it the supreme being, it doesn't work.

That depends on what you're understanding of those words mean. I can't speak for atman and brahman because I am not Hindu. I do know edit the academic concept of the abrahamic deity but that's as far as I know.

When I say "we are god" I'm just saying we are divine. We aren't evil or anything like that. I can't think of another word but divine.

Even in Hinduism itself, it has deities (or "Gods") and it regards them as different from Brahman, etymologically.

That's my point. God has too many meanings. That's why you need to be specific.

What is a creator to you that when I say "we are god" gives you strong feelings against that statement?
 

aMirage

Look outside, seek and observe.
I wasn't raised religious and never been nor understand the concept of any theistic concept of deity or being or spirit. In other words, creator as a person or being is something I do not understand.

Then what are you posting here for? And why are you getting so defensive when you admit to not understanding the etymology of the word or any religion?

Since god is not simple, is the god you believe a being? a spirit? something inside you? is it abrahamic? hindu? pagan?

Can you be specific?

No because you're deliberately going off topic.

But how do you know your definition of god is the definition of god?

Again off topic, strawman.
"My" definition is not what I'm going by, I'm speaking directly about historical etymology not little subjective opinions. You can call a Bus a Frog but that doesn't mean that Buses are now Frogs.

Not false just subjective.

The context of the thread is not "we are a deity" nor "we are the creator" so the god you are talking about is not the same god the rest of us (non-bahai) speak of. The word god is highly contextual.

I wish you saw the folly and direct contradiction of your reply here.
"deity" and "creator" are the etymological meanings of the word "God". If you state that you're God, you are stating yourself as a deity or the creator, period.
As I keep mentioning history, I wish you'd look there for your history, rather than your opinions and feelings.

That depends on what you're understanding of those words mean. I can't speak for atman and brahman because I am not Hindu. I do know edit the academic concept of the abrahamic deity but that's as far as I know.

The definitions you give for "we are God" are statements of the Hindu philosophical concept of Brahman, not of the word "God". It doesn't matter if you are talking about the Abrahamic tradition or not, the word has a meaning.

When I say "we are god" I'm just saying we are divine. We aren't evil or anything like that. I can't think of another word but divine.

If that is what you think, then why are you debating me? Say "I am divine" and then you've said what you mean, simple as that. Divinity and God aren't synonymous words.

That's my point. God has too many meanings. That's why you need to be specific.

Please enlighten me to this and what your reasoning is to say this.
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
This is a continuation of the other thread about the ways of God.
Some of the RF members said, We are God, in a sense that God is not separated. Some gave an analogy of drops of water in an ocean.

Question is, how fruitful and real is this belief that we are all God?!! Wouldn't the fruit of such a belief be "Vainglory" . To claim and think as part of a God!
I also don't understand how this belief can be reconciled with so much evilness and selfishness in the World. If we are all God, having such a divine and great nature, how come so many people have been killing others, doing wrongdoings or, being unfair. We live in a world that, there are so much poverty, and yet, there are so many selfish people who cannot even count their own money due to excessive wealth. How can we be divine or part of divinity with all these selfishness and wrongdoings?!
Great observations. I have always wondered how many people can claim we are all part of the divine, yet our world and lives so blatantly demonstrate evil and selfishness. I believe in a God who is above us and desires to redeem any who desire to lifted up out of sin and evil.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Then what are you posting here for? And why are you getting so defensive when you admit to not understanding the etymology of the word or any religion?



No because you're deliberately going off topic.



Again off topic, strawman.
"My" definition is not what I'm going by, I'm speaking directly about historical etymology not little subjective opinions. You can call a Bus a Frog but that doesn't mean that Buses are now Frogs.



I wish you saw the folly and direct contradiction of your reply here.
"deity" and "creator" are the etymological meanings of the word "God". If you state that you're God, you are stating yourself as a deity or the creator, period.
As I keep mentioning history, I wish you'd look there for your history, rather than your opinions and feelings.



The definitions you give for "we are God" are statements of the Hindu philosophical concept of Brahman, not of the word "God". It doesn't matter if you are talking about the Abrahamic tradition or not, the word has a meaning.



If that is what you think, then why are you debating me? Say "I am divine" and then you've said what you mean, simple as that. Divinity and God aren't synonymous words.



Please enlighten me to this and what your reasoning is to say this.

Its late/early but your tone is offsetting and I don't know why. I know this is a debate forum but I'm thrown off a bit. Don't have enough energy to think about why at the moment. Internet is funny these days.

Will come back when I had good rest and think about what you're trying to say beyond the tone.

:leafwind:
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'm almost forgetting your points under your tone. :( Is there other ways to phrase your arguments?
Then what are you posting here for? And why are you getting so defensive when you admit to not understanding the etymology of the word or any religion?

Huh? Let me recap for a minute

1. Why I'm on RF is a different matter

2. Two wrongs don't equal a right. If you feel I'm defensive, defuse the issue and don't counter react. What is your point?

3. Never said I did. I said the word god has different meanings by context.

No because you're deliberately going off topic.

If I don't know what you mean by god, how do I know why you object to saying "we are god."

I said we don't mean we are the creator; so, if you don't be specific, what exactly are you disagreeing with I should I understand?

Again off topic, strawman.

"My" definition is not what I'm going by, I'm speaking directly about historical etymology not little subjective opinions. You can call a Bus a Frog but that doesn't mean that Buses are now Frogs.

The word god is a contextual word. There are many historical context in which the word is used.

Buses and frogs have distinct meanings.

The word god does not.

That is English. One word and phrase can have multiple meanings.

It's not a religious conclusion, it's a grammar fact and how English treats specific abstract words. Whether you define god as a creator or not is your choice.

It doesn't make it wrong, just your preference. Everyone is different. Not right. Not wrong. Just different.

I wish you saw the folly and direct contradiction of your reply here.

"deity" and "creator" are the etymological meanings of the word "God". If you state that you're God, you are stating yourself as a deity or the creator, period.

As I keep mentioning history, I wish you'd look there for your history, rather than your opinions and feelings.

I'm just being simple. I'm a simple person.

A lot of the Pagan gods aren't considered creators. Some are incarnations of different parts and functions of the earth. Some gods and goddess are mirrored as statues, for lack of better words, as a medium for the worshiper to connect with god (different type).

If you want to use god as a creator, that's your preference. Not right. Not wrong.

This is the crux of my post: We are not saying
You say god is the creator. In this thread, half of us aren't using the term god to mean a creator. I said "we are god" because the context of the term we use does not have to do with a creator.

Not all people who believe in god (not a name for all religions) believe it is a creator.

Kinda understand that people have different views without regards to whether they are right or wrong?

The definitions you give for "we are God" are statements of the Hindu philosophical concept of Brahman, not of the word "God". It doesn't matter if you are talking about the Abrahamic tradition or not, the word has a meaning.

Okay. We're getting there for your understanding.

I wish I can find the general historical definition of the word god. It's all related to christianity. There are religions before christianity where the god concept is used. Of course, people have different languages; so, I don't know why you're sticking to that word.

Think of the context of the word god in this thread.

We're talking about context not historical definitions.​

If that is what you think, then why are you debating me? Say "I am divine" and then you've said what you mean, simple as that. Divinity and God aren't synonymous words.

Let me ask. Why do you challenge when I say "we are god"?

If god to you means creator, that's cool. Are you willing to understand why we say "we are god" or bother over the definitions and exclude the context?

Do you understand why we say "we are god"???

Please enlighten me to this and what your reasoning is to say this.

You mean?

Can you explain why you said this?

Sure.

God has many meanings. I list them by context.

1. On my god!
2. Thank the gods
3. The God Zues rained over Rome (case in point)
4. God is our Lord and Savior
5. God is love
6. God is a creator
7. God is an object of worship (say a statue)

It highly depends on the context in which you use the word.

That is plain English.

I'm not following you. Your tone is highly defensive. I don't know if you see it but counteracting this statement proves my point.

Instead, be more specific in your disagreements. I don't understand what you mean by god. God has many definitions by context in english. You are a monotheist, so do you mean god as a deity? a spirit? a force?

Is the creator a person? A thing? If you said you're christian, I'd had a little bit of an idea but then again, christians have their own definitions.

This thread is talking about contextual words. The OP wants to know how we can say "we are god." If the OP @InvestigateTruth understand god doesn't mean creator to all people and there are different definitions of god, he'd probably understand why some of us say we are god and others do not. Also, lack of understanding could depend, @aMirage, on one's background and culture to name a few.

Gotta expand your views a bit.

I can't get your points, aMirage. Challenging my statements does not need to be argumentative.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Absolutely not. It's the exact opposite of the ego and it's vainglory. To Realize that you are God, is to completely surrender and disolve the ego. All that is left is God. You are no more.

I can't recall which mystic was that said this, but I believe he was a Sufi mystic. He said that to say one is God, is the humblest thing any human can say.


Evilness comes when we think are separate from God. No one who loves with the Love of God, hates his neighbor. This is the core teachings of Jesus. Evilness comes when we believe ourselves to be separate from God and act out of less than Divine Love.


Being that, and Realizing that are two different things. A sin, is to fall short of the Divine Nature which is all of us. We can act outside of God, to be certain. That is the cause of all suffering in the world, and in ourselves.
The way you are explaining it, denotes, everyone has a choice to be separated from God, or to be God. But is this really what the notion of "we are God" denotes? Not really. The adherents of this belief, explain that All are part of God, and there is no separation between God and His creation, regardless if they think they are separated. Moreover, it is only a claim to be God, which anyone can make such a claim and just justifies it with the way you are! What evidence or proof exists that such people who make such a claim are in fact truly God?
 
Last edited:

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
This is a continuation of the other thread about the ways of God.
Some of the RF members said, We are God, in a sense that God is not separated. Some gave an analogy of drops of water in an ocean.

Question is, how fruitful and real is this belief that we are all God?!! Wouldn't the fruit of such a belief be "Vainglory" . To claim and think as part of a God!
I also don't understand how this belief can be reconciled with so much evilness and selfishness in the World. If we are all God, having such a divine and great nature, how come so many people have been killing others, doing wrongdoings or, being unfair. We live in a world that, there are so much poverty, and yet, there are so many selfish people who cannot even count their own money due to excessive wealth. How can we be divine or part of divinity with all these selfishness and wrongdoings?!

We are not the Father or Christ, but in creating us -who will be the children of God (I said "ye are gods") -God essentially logically separated a part of all that he is to become us. We have some independent decision-making power, but we are technically composed of "God" -we are made of some of what he (essentially the sum of all things) is made of.

"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

Now we must align ourselves with the will of God -and/or allow him to align us -so that we may obey/be perfected to obey the law of love which creates peace and allows for individual decision-making/creativity without conflict.

So -in one way we are -and in another way we are not.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The way you are explaining it, denotes, everyone has a choice to be separated from God, or to be God.
Not exactly. It is impossible to be separate from God. However, we "separate" ourselves from God experientially by believing the illusion that we are the things we think with the mind. Once that veil of illusion is removed, then we experience the Reality of who and what we are, and have been all along. The single most common thing expressed by those who have had that veil of illusion removed is, that it has never been anywhere or anything other that what and who we already have fully been all along. We just didn't see it because we believed the illusion of the mind instead.

The adherents of this belief, explain that All are part of God, and there is separation between God and His creation, regardless if they think they are separate.
I adhere to this realization, but in no way do I believe there is any actual separation between God and Creation. There is no separation, regardless of what they think.

Moreover, it is only a claim to be God, which anyone can make such a claim and just justifies it with the way you are!
Absolutely not. If someone is claiming they are God, and does not recognize that everyone is as well, they are insane. That is either a delusion or a flaming ego.

There is a story of Ram Dass who visited someone in a mental facility who told him that he believed he was the Christ. Ram Dass responded to him, "we all are the Christ" The patient looked confused and reiterated, "No, you don't seem to understand. They can't be because I am." To which Ram Dass responded, "You see? That is why you are in here, and I am not." :)

What evidence or proof exists that such people who make such a claim are in fact truly God?
To someone who experiences God as separate to themselves, no evidence will suffice. It's a subjective Knowledge, which when you have that Realization, it's more obvious than the light of a trillion suns. "Of course", is the response. "It's all perfectly obvious".

As a help to at least get the mind to think beyond itself, think of this. If God is Infinite, which I'm sure you believe. How can there be anywhere God is not? Is God a block of swiss cheese with holes in it where God is not? God by very definition of being Infinite, has to been in you. Or do you believe God is a finite entity with boundaries around it, like a Yeti or a god of sorts? Logic alone cannot allow God to be separate from Creation. Once you let go of that mental construction that separates God from Creation, then the next step is to get rid of the view that you are separate from God..
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
If a dog has "children" those children are still dos. If a cat has "children" those children are cats. And so on. So if people say they are children of God if would seem that that makes them "gods". What else could a child of God be?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

. Once that veil of illusion is removed, then we experience the Reality of who and what we are, and have been all along.

There is a certainty in these statements that the speaker is confident they have a grasp on who and what is God.

As I see this is not an easy task, I thus propose a hypothetical be considerd.

If the Message given by Baha'u'llah in the 1800's is indeed from God and was the fulfillment of Gods promises in the past Holy Books. If we then do not accept and connect with that message, or God forbid even reject that Message, how good an experience did we have of our Godly side? How well did we get to know God within?

This hypothetical can be expanded and have any Name of any of God's Messengers and time-line inserted. We could use Moses, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha to name a few.

Thus I guess the hypothetical could rightly ask, "if God has revealed Himself in all these Names and we reject any one of them, how good a grasp did we have of our own selves, let alone the God that is within?

Regards Tony
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is a certainty in these statements that the speaker is confident they have a grasp on who and what is God.

As I see this is not an easy task, I thus propose a hypothetical be considerd.

If the Message given by Baha'u'llah in the 1800's is indeed from God and was the fulfillment of Gods promises in the past Holy Books. If we then do not accept and connect with that message, or God forbid even reject that Message, how good an experience did we have of our Godly side? How well did we get to know God within?

This hypothetical can be expanded and have any Name of any of God's Messengers and time-line inserted. We could use Moses, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha to name a few.

Thus I guess the hypothetical could rightly ask, "if God has revealed Himself in all these Names and we reject any one of them, how good a grasp did we have of our own selves, let alone the God that is within?

Regards Tony
This is circular reasoning. It looks like this. "If my religion teaches it is the truth of God, then anyone who claims to have experienced God would believe my religion. Therefore, unless you agree with me, your experience of God cannot possibly be valid". I wholly reject such flawed reasoning. How you understand these things, how you understand any of these "messengers", is not the measure of truth for everyone else. If you start with "I'm right", then you are closed off to truth, and can't possibly be in any position to judge the truth in others.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is circular reasoning. It looks like this. "If my religion teaches it is the truth of God, then anyone who claims to have experienced God would believe my religion. Therefore, unless you agree with me, your experience of God cannot possibly be valid". I wholly reject such flawed reasoning. How you understand these things, how you understand any of these "messengers", is not the measure of truth for everyone else. If you start with "I'm right", then you are closed off to truth, and can't possibly be in any position to judge the truth in others.

The hypothetical stands no matter what I beleive, if God is in all people, it needs to be considered.

I see the hypothetical put forward would be all embracing, as it is suggesting that all are Gods Faiths, without the thought any are invalid.

Thus if God did send all the Messengers of all Faiths, then are not many fruits to be found in all?

I am happy to bow out of the discussion if you wish.

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
There is a huge difference between delusions of grandeur, and the Vedanta concepts of 'I am That', or Tat Tvam Asi' .

As Windwalker's quote from Ram Dass indicated, the deluded guy thinks he and he alone is God. Many have been duped by such guys, if they speak well, perform a few miracles, and otherwise convince someone it's true, they get a following, or a whole religion on their behalf.

The Vedantic concept (and I'm afraid because of the vast paradigm difference people here will never grasp) is very different. It says essentially that God isn't separate from his creation, in essence, at the core, in the deeper mystical realms.

Sufi mystics, Hindu sages, shamans, Taoist masters, and others have realised this truth over millennia. It's nothing new. But it's deep inner realisation, not some silly intellectual concept born out of ego.

I often wish there was a new language for mysticism, with new pronouns for the inner side. But it hasn't happened yet. So we're stuck with this misunderstanding. The inability to listen and derive understanding, based on on extremely dualistic version of God's relationship to man is what separates us. Fortunately some of us can tolerate both pictures.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
But going back to the OP, one fruit of 'We are God' is that we are tolerant. loving, kind, confident, and we see divinity in all others, albeit hidden pretty deep in some, just as we imagine God to be. The contrast of 'We are sinners' gives us this ridiculous guilt trip that lasts long and piles on over and over. We can never be good enough.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
But going back to the OP, one fruit of 'We are God' is that we are tolerant. loving, kind, confident, and we see divinity in all others, albeit hidden pretty deep in some, just as we imagine God to be. The contrast of 'We are sinners' gives us this ridiculous guilt trip that lasts long and piles on over and over. We can never be good enough.

In a nutshell
 
Top