What is the universal God or no God?

[shunyadragon]

"God is simply the One undefinable unknowable 'Source'"
****************************************************************************************************************

Not the same God I know and worship fortunately who is quite definable and knowable. I suppose I'm on the wrong thread, but it's interesting to see what other people believe.

I believe this a problem that many people describe God as 'quite' definable and knowable in different and contradictory ways. Thus, Creating their own images of God, which would be in contradiction between what would be the nature of God and fallible human abilities to consistently understand something greater than the vastness of our universe, which is likely only a small corner of a vast Creation. Some like comparing a dust bunny to our gallaxy.

 

[Avoice1C]

At least I can give the Baha'i faith credit for taking their belief in spiritual evolution logically and admiting the implication that it will "continue and change in the future", unlike Muslims and Christians who are quite prepared to believe in spiritual evolution provided it stops with them!

The way I view it, Christianity stopped evolving on a spiritual level with the Apostles whose writing we have in the Bible. Only the outward appearance of Christianity has changed. We do not dress in Arabic robes anymore and we do what we can to heal ourselves, relying on God for the rest. Which is something the Prophets of the Hebrew scriptures said we should do.

 

[shunyadragon]

The way I view it, Christianity stopped evolving on a spiritual level with the Apostles whose writing we have in the Bible. Only the outward appearance of Christianity has changed. We do not dress in Arabic robes anymore and we do what we can to heal ourselves, relying on God for the rest. Which is something the Prophets of the Hebrew scriptures said we should do.

This end of the evolution on the spiritual level is where Christianity fails to spiritually evolve in a world that was spiritually evolving around them. Judaism and Islam have faced the same fate over time.

The dependence doctrine and dogma on the mythology of Genesis and the roots in pagan mythology has further led to the failure of Christianity to evolve spiritually in a changing world, which led to divisions and conflict over time.

Judaism has resolved this conflict through pragmatism, midrash, and accepting metaphysical explanations for the stories of the Torah and Tanakh. Nonetheless they remain isolated from the rest of the world as humanity spiritually evolves past them.

 

[Avoice1C]

The Spiritual bone of Judeo-Christianity is Love. Love does no harm. In other words the commandments are the source of peace in the earth. Obeying them out of Love for humankind is the spiritual pinning of my religion. God's expectation of us has not changed since Adam. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by spiritual evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is a matter of fact that the different religions over the millennia are anchored in different human perspectives, and describe the 'Source?' some call God(s) in many different cultural perspectives.

By themselves and their claims they remain irrational, illogical belief systems based on ancient scripture, and mythology of the fallible human view of the ancient past. None of the religions in and of themselves can stand alone as the universal standard for humanity from a less biased perspective that considers all religions on an equal footing.

There is evidence that cultures and religions evolve and change over time all over the world. The earliest known Neolithic religion is animism, followed by human figures described as Lords and a lineage of Divine authority extending to ancestors, and ancestor reverence or worship. Various forms of polytheism develop with earthly Lords, which evolve to monotheism, an earthly lords. The earliest cultures practiced human and animal sacrifice, which evolved into animal sacrifice only, than symbolic metaphysical forms of sacrifice. In Eurasia there are similarities between religions, but also differences mostly related to the differences cultures.

There are two ways logically and rational to explain the evidence. The first is that there are no God(s), and this reflects a natural evolution of human society in different parts of the world the same way physical evolution diversifies into different species.

The second is the view of the Baha'i Faith that God exists, God would a more universal perspective unknown to the different fallible human perspectives. The different religions of the world represent the spiritual evolution of humanity. Scriptures and beliefs represent two aspects: (1) The progressive Revelation of spiritual teachings and principles. (2) A human view of God and the Divine nature of reality reflected in the culture of the time of the Revelation. Taken together they represent an evolving spiritual nature of humanity that will continue and change in the future.

Or the third possibility; there IS one truth, and many other beliefs were simply wrong... Can learning the truth have any meaning if there is literally no alternative??

 

[blü 2]

None of the religions in and of themselves can stand alone as the universal standard for humanity from a less biased perspective that considers all religions on an equal footing.

I'm not aware of any clear and agreed statement of what a religion is supposed to do. How do we 'consider all religions on an equal footing' without that?

By themselves and their claims they remain irrational, illogical belief systems based on ancient scripture, and mythology of the fallible human view of the ancient past. None of the religions in and of themselves can stand alone as the universal standard for humanity from a less biased perspective that considers all religions on an equal footing.

Is it correct that there exists a possible one-size-fits-all religion?

Is it correct that homogenization of human cultures is desirable?

The second is the view of the Baha'i Faith that God exists, God would a more universal perspective unknown to the different fallible human perspectives. The different religions of the world represent the spiritual evolution of humanity. Scriptures and beliefs represent two aspects: (1) The progressive Revelation of spiritual teachings and principles. (2) A human view of God and the Divine nature of reality reflected in the culture of the time of the Revelation. Taken together they represent an evolving spiritual nature of humanity that will continue and change in the future.

I don't see how an impartial onlooker could be persuaded that this was correct.

 

[wizanda]

What is the universal God or no God?

Tho agree that religious representatives for the Divine have been confused with demigods; when these should be classified as Arch Angels, who've appeared in human form as Avatars (to descend).

If we go back to the ancient understandings found in Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Hebraic texts, these all taught One God Most High (EL Elyon, Ahura Mazda, Brahman, Universal mind, Tao), that is the ultimate Source of Reality, that is formless, and beyond human comprehension in that time period...

Now tho we have Massive Multiplayer Online Games, like World of Warcraft, Runescape, etc, where we can now understand a virtual mathematically coded environment; where there is a CPU processing reality.

The problem is these complexities of the Ultimate Source of reality found in ancient texts, have been simplified in modern religious understandings; as people have turned the undefinable into being defined, and made it a static understanding that they don't fully comprehend.

The issue isn't humanities evolving ideas, it is that only someone who reaches a conscious state of enlightenment can successfully know the CPU, and too many fakes have made up religions that muddy the water.

In my opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Tho agree that religious representatives for the Divine have been confused with demigods; when these should be classified as Arch Angels, who've appeared in human form as Avatars (to descend).

Yes I believe there are what humans call Messiahs, Avatars, and Enlightened ones that have Revealed God's attributes and spiritual laws and principles through the entire history of humanity since the first(?) human.

If we go back to the ancient understandings found in Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Hebraic texts, these all taught One God Most High (EL Elyon, Ahura Mazda, Brahman, Universal mind, Tao), that is the ultimate Source of Reality, that is formless, and beyond human comprehension in that time period. . .

I believe the ultimate Source of Reality that is formless, and beyond human comprehension remain beyond human comprehension and will always be so.

The problem with religions is they claim their 'Source' how they define it is the only true 'Source' and the others are false God(s).

Now tho we have Massive Multiplayer Online Games, like World of Warcraft, Runescape, etc, where we can now understand a virtual mathematically coded environment; where there is a CPU processing reality.

This is questionable, and more human efforts to define the ultimate reality in terms of technology (computers?) and games. Not real meaningful.

The problem is these complexities of the Ultimate Source of reality found in ancient texts, have been simplified in modern religious understandings; as people have turned the undefinable into being defined, and made it a static understanding that they don't fully comprehend.

I believe the complexities added in ancient texts, and today are humans creating Gods in their own images.

The issue isn't humanities evolving ideas, it is that only someone who reaches a conscious state of enlightenment can successfully know the CPU, and too many fakes have made up religions that muddy the water.

In my opinion.

I believe the claims reaching a hypothetical enlightened state of consciousness to 'know' reality is an egocentric illusion, and again the concept of the CPU is again humans creating the ultimate reality [God(s)] in the image of own technology, which is superficial.

 

[osgart]

If God is a being, then God is heart, mind, and will. Thus knowable at heart, far beyond all in knowledge and wonder. The mind of God unsearchable, wisdom unfathomable. But at some level totally relatable, and very understandable at heart.

I am persuaded that God judges the heart. While many humans may judge people based on skill, intellect, wealth, beauty, and affluence. God would be contrary to that. God would judge, morals, and compassion according to virtue.

Certainly skill, and intellect are good things, not to be abused, but without right heart they can be very destructive.

The one story i do like is Adam and Eve. They could have chose life everlasting and instead went for good and evil knowledge. Fooling themselves with the blindness of their own hearts they put a curse on themselves because of their rebellion. They had God dwelling with them, the source of life, pure goodness, and they broke his commandment not to eat the fruit. Bad move! God gave them every choice, and set before them every good thing. All they had to do is accept God at Gods word. The most trustworthy being that ever exists, God, , and they rebelled against God.

That story alone sums up the greatest divine lesson ever. Choose life and forsake the evil way.

Mankind exists and mankind must survive, and all of us must die. No doubt a curse. And life everlasting is plain and simple love what is good, and hate what is evil. To love evil is death, and no trustworthy way is there in it. To love good is to love life, and the only way to be fulfilled.

Of all the stories in the bible this story is the only one that i really felt was truly amazing.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not aware of any clear and agreed statement of what a religion is supposed to do. How do we 'consider all religions on an equal footing' without that?

Equal footing is simply to propose a less biased perspective to understand religions without the one sided judgement from the perspective of one ancient religion toward all others.

I have not specifically nor exclusively defined all aspects of what a religion 'is supposed to do.' I do propose that the messengers of God have progressively revealed the attributes of God, and spiritual laws and principles for the spiritual evolution of humanity. I believe this reflects the actual history of humanity. As I said we hill always have to deal with the darker side of humanity dominated by materialism and egoism that leads to violence and conflict.

Is it correct that there exists a possible one-size-fits-all religion?

The proposal of a 'one-size-fits-all religion' is simplistic and a delusion, but nonetheless most religions do claim to be the one and only ;one-size-fits-all religion,' and fail to address the organic diversity of the spiritual nature of humanity. The Baha'i view is an evolving dynamic religion that embraces the diversity of religious expression. Since our spiritual nature evolves and changes, and is relative to an evolving Creation the Baha'i Faith does propose principles that it considers a guide for the future of this changing evolving human existence.

The Baha'i principles are:

From: Bahá'í teachings - Wikipedia

• 2Unity
  • 2.1 The oneness of God
  • 2.2 The oneness of humanity
  • 2.3 The oneness of religion
• 3Progressive revelation
  • 3.1 Religion as a [progressive evolving] school
• 4Social principles
  • 4.1 [Social and Legal] Equality of women and men
  • 4.2 Harmony of religion and science
  • 4.3 Universal compulsory education
  • 4.4 Universal auxiliary language
  • 4.5 Independent investigation of truth
  • 4.6 Elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty

Is it correct that homogenization of human cultures is desirable?
I don't see how an impartial onlooker could be persuaded that this was correct.

No, and I have not proposed that the homogenization of human cultures is either desirable nor possible. True, and impartial onlooker would not be persuaded that this is correct as described previously.

The Baha'i Faith by it nature embraces diversity. The principles outlined above is a framework of spiritual guidance and not a demand for homogenity. The spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith are likewise an evolving framework that may change as humanity evolves.

It is simply a matter of fact that virtually everyone believes their own belief is in some truer than others, but most beliefs do not embrace the diversity of beliefs as part of an evolving dynamic spiritual nature of humanity.

This thread was not intended to be about only the Baha'i Faith, but the nature of different religions and belief systems as they relate to a changing and evolving human world. This is more an exercise in comparative religion.

I believe the Baha'i Faith is one religion that acknowledges the diversity and dynamic evolving human nature. Whether one chooses to believe in the Baha'i Faith is up to one's own 'Independent Investigation of Truth.

The Unitarian Universalists also represent and acknowledge this diversity and dynamic nature of being human well form a more humanist perspective. The difference between the Baha'i Faith and the UU is the Baha'i Faith is God centered Revelation oriented religion, but their spiritual principles are similar. I have had a close rewarding relationship with UU over the years, but I do have a stronger belief in God than UU.

 

[james blunt]

It is a matter of fact that the different religions over the millennia are anchored in different human perspectives, and describe the 'Source?' some call God(s) in many different cultural perspectives.

By themselves and their claims they remain irrational, illogical belief systems based on ancient scripture, and mythology of the fallible human view of the ancient past. None of the religions in and of themselves can stand alone as the universal standard for humanity from a less biased perspective that considers all religions on an equal footing.

There is evidence that cultures and religions evolve and change over time all over the world. The earliest known Neolithic religion is animism, followed by human figures described as Lords and a lineage of Divine authority extending to ancestors, and ancestor reverence or worship. Various forms of polytheism develop with earthly Lords, which evolve to monotheism, an earthly lords. The earliest cultures practiced human and animal sacrifice, which evolved into animal sacrifice only, than symbolic metaphysical forms of sacrifice. In Eurasia there are similarities between religions, but also differences mostly related to the differences cultures.

There are two ways logically and rational to explain the evidence. The first is that there are no God(s), and this reflects a natural evolution of human society in different parts of the world the same way physical evolution diversifies into different species.

The second is the view of the Baha'i Faith that God exists, God would a more universal perspective unknown to the different fallible human perspectives. The different religions of the world represent the spiritual evolution of humanity. Scriptures and beliefs represent two aspects: (1) The progressive Revelation of spiritual teachings and principles. (2) A human view of God and the Divine nature of reality reflected in the culture of the time of the Revelation. Taken together they represent an evolving spiritual nature of humanity that will continue and change in the future.

Gods name is k, you need no other explanation or description. Everything exist within k, nothing exists beyond k, k cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[dfnj]

It is a matter of fact that the different religions over the millennia are anchored in different human perspectives, and describe the 'Source?' some call God(s) in many different cultural perspectives.

By themselves and their claims they remain irrational, illogical belief systems based on ancient scripture, and mythology of the fallible human view of the ancient past. None of the religions in and of themselves can stand alone as the universal standard for humanity from a less biased perspective that considers all religions on an equal footing.

There is evidence that cultures and religions evolve and change over time all over the world. The earliest known Neolithic religion is animism, followed by human figures described as Lords and a lineage of Divine authority extending to ancestors, and ancestor reverence or worship. Various forms of polytheism develop with earthly Lords, which evolve to monotheism, an earthly lords. The earliest cultures practiced human and animal sacrifice, which evolved into animal sacrifice only, than symbolic metaphysical forms of sacrifice. In Eurasia there are similarities between religions, but also differences mostly related to the differences cultures.

There are two ways logically and rational to explain the evidence. The first is that there are no God(s), and this reflects a natural evolution of human society in different parts of the world the same way physical evolution diversifies into different species.

The second is the view of the Baha'i Faith that God exists, God would a more universal perspective unknown to the different fallible human perspectives. The different religions of the world represent the spiritual evolution of humanity. Scriptures and beliefs represent two aspects: (1) The progressive Revelation of spiritual teachings and principles. (2) A human view of God and the Divine nature of reality reflected in the culture of the time of the Revelation. Taken together they represent an evolving spiritual nature of humanity that will continue and change in the future.

(3) Deism, creator but non-participant.

 

[Quintessence]

Which pantheon of Gods would be the true pantheon of Gods that are not attached to one ancient culture or another? Maybe all or none?

I don't believe either of those issues are important or relevant. I don't believe in such a thing as a "true pantheon of gods" (that smacks of the one-true-wayism of exclusivist monotheisms) and I don't believe gods being connected to a particular location or a peoples is a problem.

 

[james blunt]

(3) Deism, creator but non-participant.

Not a being though....an entity k

 

[sealchan]

It is a matter of fact that the different religions over the millennia are anchored in different human perspectives, and describe the 'Source?' some call God(s) in many different cultural perspectives.

By themselves and their claims they remain irrational, illogical belief systems based on ancient scripture, and mythology of the fallible human view of the ancient past. None of the religions in and of themselves can stand alone as the universal standard for humanity from a less biased perspective that considers all religions on an equal footing.

There is evidence that cultures and religions evolve and change over time all over the world. The earliest known Neolithic religion is animism, followed by human figures described as Lords and a lineage of Divine authority extending to ancestors, and ancestor reverence or worship. Various forms of polytheism develop with earthly Lords, which evolve to monotheism, an earthly lords. The earliest cultures practiced human and animal sacrifice, which evolved into animal sacrifice only, than symbolic metaphysical forms of sacrifice. In Eurasia there are similarities between religions, but also differences mostly related to the differences cultures.

There are two ways logically and rational to explain the evidence. The first is that there are no God(s), and this reflects a natural evolution of human society in different parts of the world the same way physical evolution diversifies into different species.

The second is the view of the Baha'i Faith that God exists, God would a more universal perspective unknown to the different fallible human perspectives. The different religions of the world represent the spiritual evolution of humanity. Scriptures and beliefs represent two aspects: (1) The progressive Revelation of spiritual teachings and principles. (2) A human view of God and the Divine nature of reality reflected in the culture of the time of the Revelation. Taken together they represent an evolving spiritual nature of humanity that will continue and change in the future.

Does the "Source" exist independently of how the human knower wonders about the nature of the reality that one finds one's self in?

 

[shunyadragon]

Does the "Source" exist independently of how the human knower wonders about the nature of the reality that one finds one's self in?

Yes, wonder by the fallible human 'knower?' concerning the nature of God that one finds oneself in is a human perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

(3) Deism, creator but non-participant.

In my view Deism is close to atheism or possible agnosticism, because in Deism the hypothetical God is not involved to the of being virtually non-existent from the human perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe either of those issues are important or relevant. I don't believe in such a thing as a "true pantheon of gods" (that smacks of the one-true-wayism of exclusivist monotheisms) and I don't believe gods being connected to a particular location or a peoples is a problem.

This sounds like a Deist view of polytheism where the Gods or more like gods are not involved nor connected to humans to the point of being non-existent.

 

[shunyadragon]

Gods name is k, you need no other explanation or description. Everything exist within k, nothing exists beyond k, k cannot be created or destroyed.

. . . but God has no specific names from the human perspective. The best we can do is live our lives and be aware based on the attributes, spiritual principles, and spiritual laws, and not create Gods in our own image. I do not believe we can conclude everything exists within God (panentheism?), but yes, nothing would exist beyond God, and God cannot be created nor destroyed.

Being aware of the greater universal unbounded nature of our existence both physical and spiritual existence is critical, and avoiding the biased perspective of any one religion or belief system at the exclusion of all others,

 

[dfnj]

In my view Deism is close to atheism or possible agnosticism, because in Deism the hypothetical God is not involved to the of being virtually non-existent from the human perspective.

The problem is nature is pretty relentless in being faithful to the laws of physics.