One God

[Jose D Alvarez]

Is only one God,name and diferents dialects ,diferents points of view ,diferents atributs , and ideologias the absolute and universal true is not go to change with are simple human ideologia.

 

[Quintessence]

Come again? Not sure what you are saying.

 

[Kirran]

Bienvenido a RF. You may want to check on the rules in relation to trying to push one particular set of beliefs on other people. Every thread-starter should be a point for discussion, rather than a statement of what you believe is fact.

En este caso, si, estoy de acuerdo, pero da lo mismo...

 

[columbus]

Is only one God,

I realize that limiting your God image to one is convenient. But I don't see any reason other than convenience to do so.
Why not 3? Or many?
Or none?
Tom

 

[loverofhumanity]

I realize that limiting your God image to one is convenient. But I don't see any reason other than convenience to do so.
Why not 3? Or many?
Or none?
Tom

I think this topic is much, much deeper than that. There are numerous ways of showing there is one God.

 

[columbus]

I think this topic is much, much deeper than that. There are numerous ways of showing there is one God.

Name one.
All I ever hear are Jews and Muslims claiming it. And Christians claiming that 3 is 1.
Tom

 

[loverofhumanity]

Name one.
All I ever hear are Jews and Muslims claiming it. And Christians claiming that 3 is 1.
Tom

For starters, all the major religions speak of only one reality. Moses, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha'u'llah all spoke of only one God

Scientifically life emanates from a single cell, molecule, atom or point not two. Oneness is reflected in both the religious and scientific world not duplicity. All life revolves around a single point not two.

 

[YmirGF]

Is only one God,name and diferents dialects ,diferents points of view ,diferents atributs , and ideologias the absolute and universal true is not go to change with are simple human ideologia.

Que?

 

[columbus]

For starters, all the major religions speak of only one reality. Moses, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha'u'llah all spoke of only one God

Human invented religion commonly gets things wrong, due to being the inventions of primitive humans with ignorant beliefs.
It makes no difference how many people are wrong or why. Nearly everyone used to believe that Creation was a lumpy plane of rock surrounded by water and overtopped with a blue dome. It isn't now and it wasn't then. But people generally believed it because their religion said so.

Scientifically life emanates from a single cell, molecule, atom or point not two. Oneness is reflected in both the religious and scientific world not duplicity. All life revolves around a single point not two.

No, that isn't true either. Scientifically accurate people don't know where life came from or how it happened.
Not yet.
Tom

 

[GoodbyeDave]

For starters, all the major religions speak of only one reality. Moses, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha'u'llah all spoke of only one God

Buddha had nothing to say about gods, as far as we know. Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab were all writing within one continuous tradition. Your interpretation of Hinduism would be disputed by many Hindus. As for Moses, there is no reason to believe he ever existed.

On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese, most Indians, and many Africans say there are many gods, so there's the counter evidence.

Basically, you have defined "major religion" as "monotheistic religion". Even if you exclude Hindus, Paganism would still be the third largest religion after Christianity and Islam. Not that this is really relevant: we don't establish the truth by taking a vote.

 

[RabbiO]

[W]e don't establish the truth by taking a vote.

Is that why no one has sent me a sample ballot?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

For starters, all the major religions speak of only one reality. Moses, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha'u'llah all spoke of only one God

Scientifically life emanates from a single cell, molecule, atom or point not two. Oneness is reflected in both the religious and scientific world not duplicity. All life revolves around a single point not two.

Where do you get off calling Bahaism (somewhere above 7.3 million) & Zoroastrianism (190k+) major religions? There are more Pagans in the world than those two groups combined. Japan alone has somewhere between 106,680,000 and 121,920,000 Shintoists and Shinto is a Pagan religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Human invented religion commonly gets things wrong, due to being the inventions of primitive humans with ignorant beliefs.
It makes no difference how many people are wrong or why. Nearly everyone used to believe that Creation was a lumpy plane of rock surrounded by water and overtopped with a blue dome. It isn't now and it wasn't then. But people generally believed it because their religion said so.

No, that isn't true either. Scientifically accurate people don't know where life came from or how it happened.
Not yet.
Tom

Exactly. Humans err and many views we've clung to have later been disproven and put down to our ignorance.

God is one of them. To maintain that we are 'it' that there is no higher intelligence in the universe that could have created man is due to our ignorance.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Where do you get off calling Bahaism (somewhere above 7.3 million) & Zoroastrianism (190k+) major religions? There are more Pagans in the world than those two groups combined. Japan alone has somewhere between 106,680,000 and 121,920,000 Shintoists and Shinto is a Pagan religion.

Numbers doesn't always determine these things but the effect their teachings have on civilization. Many of today's concepts that are taken for granted by people such as interfaith and the oneness of humanity originated with the Writings of Baha'u'llah and are ahead of their time.

Zoroastrianism you can do research and you will find it influenced a lot of the religions of today.

John R. Hinnells, Persian Mythology

"It is thought by many that this doctrine `Zoroastrianism' was a source of influence for both Eastern and Western beliefs - Hinduism and Buddhism in the East, and Judaism and Christianity in the West."

Just remembered! Ever heard of the '3 wise men'? They were three Magi, priests of Zoroastrianism. In their Holy Books Christ was prophesied. They, by not returning to Herod to tell him where the messiah Jesus was, saved Jesus from certain death and saved Christianity from being destroyed. If it wasn't for them, Christianity would never have existed!! That alone makes their contribution very major and qualifies Zoroastrian to be a major religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Buddha had nothing to say about gods, as far as we know. Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab were all writing within one continuous tradition. Your interpretation of Hinduism would be disputed by many Hindus. As for Moses, there is no reason to believe he ever existed.

On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese, most Indians, and many Africans say there are many gods, so there's the counter evidence.

Basically, you have defined "major religion" as "monotheistic religion". Even if you exclude Hindus, Paganism would still be the third largest religion after Christianity and Islam. Not that this is really relevant: we don't establish the truth by taking a vote.

Buddha originally taught about God but we do not possess all His Teachings but there are some which are indicative of this fact.

"There is, O monks,
an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed.
Were there not, O monks,
this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed,
there would be no escape from the world
of the born, originated, created, formed.
"Since, O monks, there is an
unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed,
therefore there is an escape
from the born, originated, created, formed."

The Gospel of Buddha

We understand Divine religion consists of one God. The existence of Moses is confirmed by subsequent Prophets.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Numbers doesn't always determine these things

Convenient.

but the effect their teachings have on civilization.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement for what you'd call the 'major religions' then.

Zoroastrianism you can do research and you will find it influenced a lot of the religions of today.


John R. Hinnells, Persian Mythology

"It is thought by many that this doctrine `Zoroastrianism' was a source of influence for both Eastern and Western beliefs - Hinduism and Buddhism in the East, and Judaism and Christianity in the West."

I'm well aware of that. It's also worth pointing out that old Pagan ways have had nearly as much an effect as those of Zoroastrianism. Christianity was influenced by (and probably influenced in turn) such Pagan beliefs as Mithraism, the cult of Sol Invictus, Neoplatonism, the concept of a Triune God, sacred feasts.
Same goes for Islam; it's essentially the cult (by that I mean the focussed worship of a deity; just as Orphism was a cult dedicated to the worship of Dionysos) of an Arabic ruler deity who has disavowed his three daughters. They pray at a Pagan shrine in ways the pre-Islamic Arabs would probably have done i.e. circumambulation.

Just remembered! Ever heard of the '3 wise men'? They were three Magi, priests of Zoroastrianism. In their Holy Books Christ was prophesied. They, by not returning to Herod to tell him where the messiah Jesus was, saved Jesus from certain death and saved Christianity from being destroyed. If it wasn't for them, Christianity would never have existed!! That alone makes their contribution very major and qualifies Zoroastrian to be a major religion.

That's a recent exegesis; nothing more. And the contributions that Paganism has made easily qualifies it as such; but the reality is your definition of a 'major religion' is entirely self-serving. Bahais talk about the oneness of humanity under one belief system and how all beliefs have something in common but it takes an arrogant amount of erasure and appropriation to do this with Pagan religions.

Buddha originally taught about God but we do not possess all His Teachings but there are some which are indicative of this fact.

"There is, O monks,
an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed.
Were there not, O monks,
this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed,
there would be no escape from the world
of the born, originated, created, formed.
"Since, O monks, there is an
unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed,
therefore there is an escape
from the born, originated, created, formed."

The Gospel of Buddha

We understand Divine religion consists of one God. The existence of Moses is confirmed by subsequent Prophets.

That is not from the Buddha. That book The Gospel of Buddha was written in 1894 by a man called Paul Carus who wanted to lend Buddhism some legitimacy in the eyes of the Christian West. It's fundamentally dishonest of you to attempt to pass this off as coming from Gautama Buddha when there's no evidence it was written by him.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Convenient.




That's hardly a ringing endorsement for what you'd call the 'major religions' then.




I'm well aware of that. It's also worth pointing out that old Pagan ways have had nearly as much an effect as those of Zoroastrianism. Christianity was influenced by (and probably influenced in turn) such Pagan beliefs as Mithraism, the cult of Sol Invictus, Neoplatonism, the concept of a Triune God, sacred feasts.
Same goes for Islam; it's essentially the cult (by that I mean the focussed worship of a deity; just as Orphism was a cult dedicated to the worship of Dionysos) of an Arabic ruler deity who has disavowed his three daughters. They pray at a Pagan shrine in ways the pre-Islamic Arabs would probably have done i.e. circumambulation.




That's a recent exegesis; nothing more. And the contributions that Paganism has made easily qualifies it as such; but the reality is your definition of a 'major religion' is entirely self-serving. Bahais talk about the oneness of humanity under one belief system and how all beliefs have something in common but it takes an arrogant amount of erasure and appropriation to do this with Pagan religions.




That is not from the Buddha. That book The Gospel of Buddha was written in 1894 by a man called Paul Carus who wanted to lend Buddhism some legitimacy in the eyes of the Christian West. It's fundamentally dishonest of you to attempt to pass this off as coming from Gautama Buddha when there's no evidence it was written by him.

It is our belief that Baha'u'llah is the return of Buddha and as such He confirms that all the Educators which includes Buddha did teach about God.

As to being self serving. If you look at how the Baha'is of Iran are treated, it is, I believe, a travesty of Justice to level the accusation of self serving at us when we could easily get our rights, places of work and cemeteries back just by renouncing our Faith. There is nothing self serving about accepting torture, imprisonment and execution for ones belief.

As to paganism.

Even atheism plays a valuable role today. When we see terrorism and child sexual abuse being committed in the name of religion isn't it better to turn away from such religion? So often those who have turned away from religion are not turning away from goodness but corruption.

As far as erasure. Baha'is acknowledge that the basic teachings of religions are one and the same but the social teachings are adapted, changed, replaced and in some cases abolished by subsequent Educators according to the needs of the time and the capacity of the people.

Today technology enables us to see the world as one entity and humanity is able to intermingle due to advancements in technology and communication so the teaching for this age is the oneness and unity of humanity which could not have been accomplished in previous eras because the means were simply not available and even many countries were not even discovered yet like America and Australia.

So now that world unity is a practical possibility, a Manifestation of God has appeared with the spiritual teachings to support this major change in our world from nationalism to a world civilization.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is our belief that Baha'u'llah is the return of Buddha and as such He confirms that all the Educators which includes Buddha did teach about God.

But you have no basis for claiming this is the truth beyond your own desire for it to be the truth. You're engaging in theology-of-the-gaps.

As to being self serving. If you look at how the Baha'is of Iran are treated, it is, I believe, a travesty of Justice to level the accusation of self serving at us when we could easily get our rights, places of work and cemeteries back just by renouncing our Faith. There is nothing self serving about accepting torture, imprisonment and execution for ones belief.

How Iran treats Bahais and every other minority is reprehensible. That doesn't cancel out the fact you're defining both the narratives of other faiths and the definition of 'major religions' purely to give your beliefs more legitimacy.

As to paganism.

Even atheism plays a valuable role today. When we see terrorism and child sexual abuse being committed in the name of religion isn't it better to turn away from such religion? So often those who have turned away from religion are not turning away from goodness but corruption.

I get the distinct impression you're conflating Paganism with paganism here. I hope that's not the case as you've been around this forum long enough that you should hopefully be able to tell the difference. I'm not capitalising for the fun of it - there is actually a difference between the two beyond the upper & lower cases.

As far as erasure. Baha'is acknowledge that the basic teachings of religions are one and the same but the social teachings are adapted, changed, replaced and in some cases abolished by subsequent Educators according to the needs of the time and the capacity of the people.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're erasing what religions actually teach in order to cram them all into your box of 'unity' and to make them sound as though they're actually really similar when they're not. There's no evidence that Buddhism has ever preached the worship of the One God. The only source you've been able to pull up so far is a book written in 1894 by a man who wanted to make Buddhism sound like Christianity. You're actually engaging with what one of these "Educators" taught as he changed the beliefs to suit the people of the time, rather than what is more than likely the original teachings of the Buddha.

Today technology enables us to see the world as one entity and humanity is able to intermingle due to advancements in technology and communication so the teaching for this age is the oneness and unity of humanity which could not have been accomplished in previous eras because the means were simply not available and even many countries were not even discovered yet like America and Australia.

A religion aspiring to such a benevolent goal as uniting humanity and ending religious-based violence should not need to resort to misrepresentation & erasure of other beliefs it allegedly respects in order to do so.

So now that world unity is a practical possibility, a Manifestation of God has appeared with the spiritual teachings to support this major change in our world from nationalism to a world civilization.

All under the auspices of Bahaism, no doubt. One theocracy is just as bad as any other.

 

[Tumah]

I realize that limiting your God image to one is convenient. But I don't see any reason other than convenience to do so.
Why not 3? Or many?
Or none?
Tom

1. Increasing the number of gods passed one, intrinsically limits the power of them all.
2. As the Creator of all things, prior to any created dimension or other form of division, there is no way to logically divide G-d into parts or multiples. Its like an infinite point. Lacking dimension, you can't divide a point or have multiple points within a point.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think this topic is much, much deeper than that. There are numerous ways of showing there is one God.

Deeper?

I find myself scratching my head. How can such an arbitrary, self-referential idea as Abrahamic Monotheism be very deep at all?