We have been there already, IIRC.
I truly wish you refrained from misrepresenting Buddhism (which is what you are doing) in such a serious way.
Even your reference is of dubious reputation.
-
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!
One God
- Thread starter Jose D Alvarez
- Start date
I truly wish you refrained from misrepresenting Buddhism (which is what you are doing) in such a serious way.
Even your reference is of dubious reputation.
I take it that you mean to say that behind and beyond the variety of human perspectives there is a solid, reliable truth of an absolute, single God?
If that is what you believe, that is your privilege. I do however feel sorry that you decide to lend so much importance to a concept ("god") that is so utterly unfit for that role.
I feel much the opposite. "God" is a superlatively ill-defined, fragile concept that, ironically, is deemed attractive by many people precisely because it is so fragile and therefore must be fixed in so many different ways.
We would all be much better off either letting go of the concept entirely (and that would be very small loss, if even a loss at all) or at least acknowledging that god is a concept created to serve religious purposes, not the other way around.
Religion is a worthwhile if dangerous pursuit. "God" is a minor concept not worth of much worry.
Jedster
Flying through space
1. Increasing the number of gods passed one, intrinsically limits the power of them all.
Not at all. You applying human judgements to said god(s).
E.g If one person takes 20 minutes to eat a cake, then it will take two persons(eating at the same pace) 10 minutes. This would not apply to god(s), unless she/he/they wanted it too :>)
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.
Surely god(s) created logic but are not under it, so there could be many or none.
Good point that a point has no dimension, so there is no way to logically pretend that we know anything about god(s). , other than a convenient metaphore for the infinite. A metaphore for our limited minds.
Maybe everything did come from nothing(i.e THAT point)
Not at all. You applying human judgements to said god(s).
E.g If one person takes 20 minutes to eat a cake, then it will take two persons(eating at the same pace) 10 minutes. This would not apply to god(s), unless she/he/they wanted it too :>)
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.
Surely god(s) created logic but are not under it, so there could be many or none.
Good point that a point has no dimension, so there is no way to logically pretend that we know anything about god(s). , other than a convenient metaphore for the infinite. A metaphore for our limited minds.
Maybe everything did come from nothing(i.e THAT point)
Tumah
Veteran Member
I almost missed this. You have to tag me so that I know you're commenting on what I wrote.
1. God A wouldn't have control over God B so its power is limited to non-God B environments. And vis-versa.
2. Practically speaking, each of the gods would be subject to the other's approval or disapproval (ie. if God A doesn't like what God B does, it undoes it), unless they self-limit.
Its because there is no logical way to understand anything about G-d, that we take the apophatic approach.
Actually it would in at least two ways that I can think of:
1. God A wouldn't have control over God B so its power is limited to non-God B environments. And vis-versa.
2. Practically speaking, each of the gods would be subject to the other's approval or disapproval (ie. if God A doesn't like what God B does, it undoes it), unless they self-limit.
"Many" requires that the concept of "number" was not a created element.
Its because there is no logical way to understand anything about G-d, that we take the apophatic approach.
Why would a God even be bound by perceptions of number anyway?
We believe Buddha taught about God and Baha'u'llah confirms it. If you knew Who Baha'u'llah was you would have no argument about this.
We are surrounded by proof of God everyday, everyday minute. It's as clear as the sun at midday to me. If you can't see it that doesn't lessen my seeing His clear proofs.
I cannot fathom how anyone can deny the existence of God. But each to his own.
I have found these things to be true from my own personal investigation. You choose your path in life and others choose theirs.
Call it as you wish. It is not how you say it but if it makes you feel good to criticism us then go right ahead.
No one in existence can prove the authenticity of the Teachings of the Buddha. All we have is His return to state what He accurately taught.
Challenge the Writings of Baha'u'llah as He asks sincere people to do.
I strongly suggest you take up His challenge if you consider you are more knowledgeable and wiser and know more.
He is the Face of God on earth. You really want to challenge His Wisdom? Be my guest.
“O ye leaders of religion! Who is the man amongst you that can rival Me in vision or insight? Where is he to be found that dareth to claim to be My equal in utterance or wisdom? No, by My Lord, the All-Merciful! All on the earth shall pass away; and this is the face of your Lord, the Almighty, the Well-Beloved.”
Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “The Kitab-i-Aqdas.”
We believe Buddha in the Person of Baha'u'llah has returned and He is saying that He originally taught about God. That's what we believe.
I am well aware of how theistic Bahai teachings are.
Unfortunately for you, I am even more aware of how little and how peripherical mention of deities is in Buddhism as well.
In other words, Baha'u'llah misled you Bahais where it comes to how Buddhism relates to god-belief.
Please don't lie about me.
Clearly.
There are prophecies about Buddha returning. All that Baha'u'llah has done is fulfill them. Buddhists should be rejoicing not condemning Him. They do not realize that in condemning Baha'u'llah they are in effect condemning the Buddha Himself whom they claim fealty to. For They are one and the same Reality.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
You'r entitled to your own beliefs but not to your own facts. There is no credible evidence that Buddha taught of the One God. The theology-of-the-gaps employed by Bahais and Ahmadi Muslims relies more on the flimsy-at-best credibility of their respective founders than on any tangible proof to back up their claims.
It doesn't make me feel good. I'm not doing this to make myself feel good.
Your claim that Baha'u'llah is a Buddha does not stand up to scrutiny. He hasn't taught anyone how to break the cycle of suffering which (according to Buddhist teaching) every being - mortals & gods - is caught in. He hasn't expounded on the Buddha's original teachings because he's too busy borrowing His credibility to try and puff up his own claims to prophethood.
Ah, I must challenge Baha'u'llah himself if I disagree with him. A Kent Hovind endeavour if ever there was one - I can't challenge a dead man. I don't need to know everything about shoes to be able to say crossing your laces once is not a knot but according to you, if Baha'u'llah knows more about lace-tying than I did, he's right by default. Which brings me to my next point: there's no way I can win in your eyes because you've already decided Baha'u'llah is right so if I disagree I must be wrong - and nothing will change your mind in that regard.
Okay, I'll bite.
What evidence does Baha'u'llah bring that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was a Manifestation of God, that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha taught the Oneness of God as a core principle? What does Baha'u'llah have to say about Laozi? And who does he say were the Manifestations of God in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia, Oceania, Australia and the Americas?
Okay, I'll bite.
What evidence does Baha'u'llah bring that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was a Manifestation of God, that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha taught the Oneness of God as a core principle? What does Baha'u'llah have to say about Laozi? And who does he say were the Manifestations of God in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia, Oceania, Australia and the Americas?
The greatest proof of a Manifestation of God is His Self, that is His life, the life He led and His Words.
What convinced me was His Words. The Book of Certitude.
Before you can accept anything Baha'u'llah says you need to test His Knowledge and Words whether they are worthy of His claim to be the Promised One of all religions or not.
It's possible a person may be biased and so judge Him as false but if we are sincere and fair minded it will become obvious in time whether He's sent by God or not and whether His knowledge is infallible truth or not.
Once that can be established then we can look at what He has said about the Prophets and Educators of the past.
In the Book of Certitude, Baha'u'llah lays down the conditions of a true seeker and if those conditions are met they will receive the truth through personal investigation. No priests or ceremonies just you and your own mind.
The Book of Certitude is the pure Words of Baha'u'llah. He explains in it the misunderstandings and misinterpretations about many religious concepts of the Quran and Bible but applicable to all Faiths.
Two Books I advise to browse through are:
The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah - His announcement to the Kings, Rulers and religious leaders and people's of the world that He was the One foretold in all the scriptures.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/PB/
Next - The Book of Certitude
http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/kitab-i-iqan/
http://bahai-library.com/momen_encyclopedia_buddhism
So that's what I'm doing.. What was his knowledge about other regions of the world and other religions like (beyond those with which he came into contact)? And their teachers, wise women and men, etc.? (I've read his various writings already, and I see them lacking somewhat in the above respects)
One thing that I think we need to allow for here is the fact that I can never prove to you or anyone the truth I know about Baha'u'llah. I can only and have only proven it to myself from my own investigation.
I can only encourage others to take a look at it but you know the saying you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink applies here.
But leaving out personal experience there's no proof Buddha didn't teach God or proof He rejected God as we cannot authenticate His Teachings beyond doubt.
How then can one determine the truth? Didn't He say that another Buddha would arise in time? What else have we if not this future Buddha to verify what Buddha actually taught?
Anyways I respect your views and I'm happy to accept you don't agree as we live and learn. We all can share what we know and learn from each other and I learn a lot from people here like yourself.
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. You follow your heart and mind and accept only what feels right for you. I wouldn't want it any other way.
In essence everything we could possibly believe in or imagine has been addressed. We have almost one hundred years of what we believe to be infallible guidance from Baha'u'llah, His Son Abdul-Baha and His great grandson Shoghi Effendi where just about every topic is addressed covering every belief that exists.
Abdul-Baha for instance speaks much more about Buddha because He was asked questions whereas Baha'u'llah in Iran was never asked questions about Buddha because it is a Muslim country.
But there's definitely a lot of information out there it's just a matter of knowing where to look,
Thief
Rogue Theologian
We are all free to our own beliefs, I am thankful that I was raised and taught to believe in the One True God of the Christian Bible. Our creator and our redeemer.
ronandcarol