Is God omnipotent?
-
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!
Pros and cons of attempts at perceiving many or all religions as pointing to the same conclusions
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
Is God omnipotent?
I am aware of the Baha'i view.
If I may, Vinayakaji, I would like to respond to you.
You are, indeed, correct: Krishna is not the founder of Hinduism, and, of course, we recognize this. HOWEVER, Shri Krishna, is He not the One who basically expounded what are the essentials of Hindu Teaching, the Sanatana Dharma, in the Bhagavad Gita?
Thank you. Apparently then not all Bahais believe the same, or I wouldn't have had to assert the correction to the other poster, no?
Yes, Krishna expounded on life in the Bhagavad Gita. However, as you may or may not know, Hinduism is about 4 religions rolled into one, and not all Hindus consider the BG as authority. Good book, yes, but of less importance to some than to others. The Vedas are our authoritative texts.
So for the previous point, who is the authority for Bahai, or are there individual takes within the congregation?
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
It depends how omnipotent is defined. The prophets have said, God does what He wills, and He ordains what He please.
Can God make a heavy stone, that He wont be able to move it?
I know this, assuredly, Vinayaka.
As for the ultimate authority for Bahá’ís, it currently rests with the Universal House of Justice. They have the given authority to officially interpret, and the task to apply on an institutional basis, the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
Though, that is part of a larger Covenant: that of Bahá’u’lláh. Basically, it says that while the above is absolutely final, it also leaves the individuals free to come to their own private understandings of the Writings, prohibiting them from claiming an authoritative understanding – or the only correct one – and starting a sect. This is why there is no clergy in the Bahá’í Faith!
Yes, I've read the Bahai's official take on Hinduism. It is a far better understanding of us than most other Abrahamic faiths have. Still there are some very clear misunderstandings, and of course several basic and fundamental differences between faiths. (Cremation versus burial, proseltysing versus not proseltysing) The main one I notice is that the Bahais, although in introductory passages, acknowledge Hinduism's diversity, in reality focus on just one sect, perhaps two at most.
But its all good. We respect all non-violent faiths, and share that key concept of non-violence.
But its all good. We respect all non-violent faiths, and share that key concept of non-violence.
I don't disagree with you, Vinayaka. You must admit, though, by even a rudimentary or general acknowledgement of Hinduism which is nothing but positive, Bahá’u’lláh (as well as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi) at least gives us as His followers that green light; He permits us, He even encourages us to pursue much deeper understandings of other Religions. That, going back to that fundamental, two-fold idea in the Bahá’í Faith of the unity of Religion and of progressive revelation. We're taught that Hinduism is a Divinely Revealed Religion! So, of course, why not study it more deeply? Why not go and worship with Hindus, read and meditate upon their Sacred Writings, ask questions about it in the spirit of a humble student, and be willing to have your misconceptions blown away? Of course, that lack of understanding exists on both sides. Many of us, as Bahá’ís (like many people here in the States), we don't understand Hinduism too much, but you cannot say that we are (or at least, I am) not willing to do so. That's why we're all here: to properly educate one another, to learn from each other, to hopefully come to that understanding that though there are differences between our religions’ teachings, they do not determine whether or not a religion has worth or value.
So, from my end, it's all good over here, too. We ice cold, dude!
What would be your answer to this question?
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
My answer would be No, He cannot.
I believe There are also other things that He cannot do. For example I believe He cannot incarnate His essence:
"Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men."
- Bahaullah
Is He omni-benevolent, omni-compassionate?
NO, God is Not omnipotent. As the Bible says at Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 that there are things God can Not do such as God can Not lie.
In the case of both Job and Jesus the conclusion of the matter ended up better than the beginning.
Even when righteous Job declared his own self as righteous rather than letting God declare Job righteous, God did Not withhold any blessings from Job - Job 32:2; Job 42:12-17
In the coming resurrection, Job looks forward to being released from the grave and the aging process as Job looks forward to that future time when his flesh will be fresher than in childhood when he returns to the days of his youth with everlasting life in view - Job 33:24-25; Job 33:30-33; Acts of the Apostles 24:15
Jesus too shared the ' key concept of non-violent faith '- Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10; John 13:34-35
After first-century Christianity ended, ' Christendom ' ( so-called Christian mostly in name only ) ignored Jesus' non-violent command - Matthew 7:21-23
Christendom often uses the pulpit as a recruiting station so parents will sacrifice their young on the Altar of War.
Christendom often promotes a political agenda in the name of Christ over Christ's concept of a non-violent faith agenda.
Do you think that I have come to give peace on Earth? No, I tell you, rather division.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the Earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Do you think at Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus was talking about a literal actual sword ?_____
Rather, because of choosing to follow Jesus, the people closest to us would oppose us for following Jesus - Matthew 10:16-23.
That figurative ' sword ' is especially cuttingly painful when loved ones reject us for following Jesus the way he wants us to follow him.
Even at first some of Jesus' own family thought he had gone ' mad '- John 10:20 - so division was made by that figurative cutting sword - Mark 3:21
That division (separating) is on the part of the opposing loved ones. Not meaning taking up literal violence against another - John 13:34-35
I'm not familiar with Christianity, and personally don't believe he existed. Regardless of that, too bad so many people in history never got that message, and still today it lingers over some denominations like a stench.
Yes, it will ' linger like a stench ', so to speak, as foretold at Acts of the Apostles 20:28-30 because false shepherds keep the message from their flocks.
That ' stench ' would continue until the ' harvest time ', or the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37
Genuine ' wheat ' Christians will be separated from such stinking fake ' weed/tares' Christians before the start of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth begins when Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among people of goodwill - Matthew 7:21-23.
Yes, and aggressive proseltysing amongst peace loving citizens anywhere causes a ton of pain, pitting brother against brother, wife against husband, neighbour against neighbour. For we Hindus, peace starts in the family, and spreads. Of course I don't believe in any of those prophecies, but if it all happens in a peaceful way where the eastern faiths can still help the purpose of the soul on this planet to attain moksha, then great.
Edited ... we've strayed from the original topic a bit, but I think examples do illustrate the original point here. So far you and I only agree on ahimsa (non-violence), as far as I can tell, and our definitions on that vary somewhat.
Edited ... we've strayed from the original topic a bit, but I think examples do illustrate the original point here. So far you and I only agree on ahimsa (non-violence), as far as I can tell, and our definitions on that vary somewhat.
Last edited: