One God

[columbus]

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

@Godobeyer is thankful that he was taught better.
I don't think any of you were taught well. But you all sound the same to me.

Why would I think you know more about The Creator than @FearGod or @Terese or @paarsurrey or @Tumah or @Quintessence ?
Tom

 

[Godobeyer]

@Godobeyer is thankful that he was taught better.

Tom

Thanks for tag me
About what I taught better ?

 

[buddhist]

... Buddha ... spoke of only one God

No he didn't.

 

[buddhist]

Buddha had nothing to say about gods, as far as we know.

The Buddha spoke about many gods, in the early suttas.

 

[buddhist]

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."

This is not about "God" in the sense which most monotheistic religions understand that word. The Buddha was speaking about a state of being - nibbana - he was not speaking about an individual, intelligent almighty Deity.

 

[columbus]

Thanks for tag me
About what I taught better ?

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.

You know that Christian trinity beliefs are wrong. Jesus isn't a god. There is only one god, right?

@ronandcarol don't know that. They are glad that they learned how wrong Islam is.
Tom

 

[buddhist]

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.

The verses @loverofhumanity quotes actually come from the canonical Buddhist scriptures, found in the Udana (8.3), the Tatiyanibbānasuttaṃ 73.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The verses @loverofhumanity quotes actually come from the canonical Buddhist scriptures, found in the Udana (8.3), the Tatiyanibbānasuttaṃ 73.

Thank you very much Buddhist. I know and love a lot of the Buddhist Writings but have difficulty finding the actual Sutta.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Many (there) Pagans believe in multiple gods. How does that fit in the one god category?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Have to interject. The teachings of The Buddha does not support what you are saying. You have to go by the suttas not by what Bahaullah says about it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

How can someone deny something they cannot see? That's like you're saying a blind person is denying that you are looking at the color red when if he were born blind, he'd have no conception on what that color even means. Is he in denial or can you accept that he just can't see what you see?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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,

But surely if Baha'u'llah was the current Manifestation of God, and the one for the thousand or so years after his death, come to establish a unified world, etc., he would know that there would in time be people who might want to see some evidence that he knew about regions of the world and religions and their teachers beyond those with which he had come into contact...Right?

Referring to Abdul-Baha (or Shoghi Effendi) doesn't really work in this instance, because Baha'u'llah's challenge was regarding his own knowledge.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Many (there) Pagans believe in multiple gods. How does that fit in the one god category?

I only accept one God. No idea about pagans.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But surely if Baha'u'llah was the current Manifestation of God, and the one for the thousand or so years after his death, come to establish a unified world, etc., he would know that there would in time be people who might want to see some evidence that he knew about regions of the world and religions and their teachers beyond those with which he had come into contact...Right?

Referring to Abdul-Baha (or Shoghi Effendi) doesn't really work in this instance, because Baha'u'llah's challenge was regarding his own knowledge.

Of course He has that knowledge but He won't say something that cannot be verified. What's the point of speaking about names of people who we have no record of? How would that prove He was any more knowledgeable as people could just say He made it all up?

I think what you can't challenge is His solution for today's problems.

I bet you can't find a better solution or imagine something higher or better than world unity or the oneness of mankind. There is no higher form of teaching for this age than what Baha'u'llah taught.

So much so that if you want to go into it in real depth I can show how countries all over the world are adopting the teachings of Baha'u'llah as cutting edge for today's problems.

From multiculturalism to interfaith to women's rights to human rights and religious tolerance these have had all their origins in specific verses and passages of Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah said His Words were 'creative'. In other words what He says will happen or the means will arrive to make it happen.

Just one or two words of Baha'u'llah brought about the internet, world travel and world communications. Because His Words bring about the sciences to enable the Words to be fulfilled.

Imagine in 1860's Baha'u'llah saying the world is but one country and mankind its citizens and how people mocked Him as there was no such thing as one world or world communications or travel yet today look how science has 'obeyed' the Words of Baha'u'llah and brought about the fulfillment of 'everything' He has written.

And this goes on and on. The end is limitless.

From the moment Baha'u'llah declared men and women equal look at women's rights arising all over the world. Coincidence? Hardly.

Look at even the marriage law of one year separation by various governments. Almost word for word the same in His Book of Laws revealed around 1873.

What about the League of Nations, the UN, world bodies? Baha'u'llah called in the 1800's for a world assemblage of all the kings rulers and leaders of the world. They 'obeyed' Him and formed international bodies and the world continues to gravitate towards His laws and teachings regardless of whether they accept Him or not.

You and I are surrounded by the teachings of Baha'u'llah being implemented in our daily lives everywhere. And none is complaining until it comes to recognition. But His teachings are being adopted all over the planet because they are what is needed.

All the sciences and arts serve His Revelation Whose aim is the oneness of mankind. The purpose of it all is human happiness to put an end to war and improve the lives of people everywhere.

This is the age when humanity will attain to a golden age of peace after thousands of years of suffering.

There is no power on earth that can transform our world into a place of peace, harmony and happiness except the teachings of God for this age.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How can someone deny something they cannot see? That's like you're saying a blind person is denying that you are looking at the color red when if he were born blind, he'd have no conception on what that color even means. Is he in denial or can you accept that he just can't see what you see?

I can see God very clearly. God is spirit not a rock or stone so one must look with spiritual eyes and hear His voice with their spirit.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I only accept one God. No idea about pagans.

If there is one god and some Pagans say that there is more than one, how do reconcile that from the Pagan's perspective rather than Bahallauh?

I ask because you use The Buddha's teachings to support your point, why not other religions? The Buddha isn't an abrahamic tradition nor are Pagan religions; so, I honestly don't see how a lot of the religious figures can be manifestations of one particular god when there are so many.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can see God very clearly. God is spirit not a rock or stone so one must look with spiritual eyes and hear His voice with their spirit.

It is an analogy. If one is blind spiritually and you "see" something that blind person cannot see spiritually, how do you expect the spiritually blind person understand what he cannot know? How can he be in denial of something that is not part of his reality to even experience?

That, and why would this blind person be at a disadvantage because he doesn't see what and how you see spiritually?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Have to interject. The teachings of The Buddha does not support what you are saying. You have to go by the suttas not by what Bahaullah says about it.

Yes of course. I have read many Suttas. There are many wonderful Suttas.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is an analogy. If one is blind spiritually and you "see" something that blind person cannot see spiritually, how do you expect the spiritually blind person understand what he cannot know? How can he be in denial of something that is not part of his reality to even experience?

That, and why would this blind person be at a disadvantage because he doesn't see what and how you see spiritually?

We are all endowed with the capacity to know God or spiritual truth. But Often we allow our spiritual qualities to diminish due to lack of use or attachment to this world.

But at any time we can reactivate our spiritual senses by exposing them to the Words of God or spiritual words.

Many people who are exposed to the Word of God become affected and awakened no matter which religion. The Words of Buddha have a special potency which is why so many people feel changed after reading them.

People who do not expose themselves to any Sacred Words usually end up denying that spiritual things or God even exist. But if we expose ourselves to spiritual words we will awaken our spirituality within us which is in all of us as we are spiritual beings ultimately. Our bodies are just temporary.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes of course. I have read many Suttas. There are many wonderful Suttas.

I notice you are not going by the suttas. You are using Bahaullah as a foundation for understanding the suttas not The Buddha's foundation.

It is like my using the Bible to interpret the Quran only because they both mention gods. Yet, in the former mainstream Christianity, god is a human. In the latter, god is not.

The Buddha believed many god's existed. He was a "pagan" in the technical definition of the term before he became enlightened. He used to believe in the gods (not god) of India mostly that of Hindu. Then, as I was just reading his First Discourse a couple of hours ago, he said now he has full knowledge and understanding that he did not gain from god but from himself. In story, he divorced himself from Hindu and other Indian pagan practices of his time and followed that of knowledge. He didn't deny gods (not god) exist.

He did not believe in nor believed there was just one god. Even if he did, it was not the god of abraham. The Buddha lived way before Bahai and way before Christ and Muhammad. Hindu even further back then Buddhism.

In another post you said Bahallauh can't speak of something that hasn't yet been recorded. If that is true, in his day, he knew nothing about The Buddha. Therefore, where in Bahallauh's teachings in that time period no comentaries that he heard of The Buddha?

Bahai is from India, right? If so, wouldn't it be more logical that he would have heard the gods of Hindu if he did write about other people being manifestations of god?

Plus, if you read the suttas, The Buddha talked about the same things you can read in a modern text book of sociology and psychology. What in his teachings says that he is a manifestation of a creator of any sort?