What is the universal God or no God?

[shunyadragon]

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.

First, this is an idealist tripping through the pansies and daisies on a warm sunny May day view of Christianity, and not the reality of the whole beliefs, nature and problems with Christianity.

Fact, these principles, 'spiritual bone?', basis of all religions, but when taken into the context of the belief in the exclusiveness of one religion over another the concept of love may be and often is harmful to those beyond the 'chosen sense of community of the claimed one true faith, as for example where it is strongest in Judaism, Christianity and Islam in history. This includes conflict, violence, separation, and exclusion of those who believe differently, which leaves them separated and out of touch with the reality of a more evolving diverse universal relationship between God and Creation.

There are many spiritual issues in Christianity that lack consistent guidance in an evolving changing world, such as the issue of science, slavery, and the relationship between religions that believe differently. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on strong tribal beliefs grounded in the Bible that separate them from others.

The foundation of the belief in salvation in Christianity is grounded in the mythology of Genesis, which in turn divides Christianity in a confusion of literal versus metaphorical interpretations of scripture to address the changing scientific knowledge of our physical existence. The problem is compounded by the fact that the authors of the gospels, and the Church Fathers overwhelmingly by the majority believed in some form of a literal Genesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

This does not address the issue of the belief in Deism, and appears to be more an agnostic atheist response,

There are likely ultimately universal physical laws that our laws approximate particularly in the underlying reality of Quantum Mechanics, which human efforts may not achieve the ultimate resolution.

It is of utmost importance to endorse science as the evolving body of knowledge that describes our physical existence and not compromise if with religious bias nor agendas.

 

[james blunt]

. . . 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,

But nothing can supersede k,

'God'' is that which existed before the beginning of time, that which existed before the beginning of time is namely k.

k is an entity that has real independent and distinct existence, without k something cannot exist.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

How do you figure? I'm not quite following how what I wrote there suggests this in any fashion, and it definitely isn't consistent with typical polytheistic theology. In polytheism, the gods govern (or literally are) various facets of reality, from the land to the sea to the sky and ideals like justice and love. It's impossible for them not to be involved and connected to everything.

 

[Audie]

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.

Um, does this mean there are only two possibilities, the wrong way and your way?

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
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.
↑
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.

at you're saying would seem to lead to the conclusion that the Baha'i faith would be a "fallible human perspective" that can't "stand alone," but I get the sense that this isn't what you're going for.

Careful you are using seems with often unfounded assumption of what other people believe.

Yes, ALL religions including the Baha'i Faith are to a certain extent the belief in God and Revelation from the fallible human perspective.

BTW - something I've been curious about: why is it that so many of the proselytizers we get on RF are Baha'i? Isn't the Baha'i faith supposed to be a non-proselytizing religion?

Here and in the past you present a very defensive persona that when members discuss, dialogue and compare religions including their own it is proselytizing. This leads me to the conclusion that you have insecurities about willing to discuss different beliefs without priori assumptions that they are proselytizing.

As far as the Baha'i Faith goes I was asked questions and answered them the best I could. Descriptive responses concern what the Baha'i Faith and I believe IS NOT PROSELYTIZING.

Your response here is most definitely over the top hyperbole trying to shut down dialogue of comparative religion with an aggressive agenda.

Is what you're doing here the sort of thing you might get in trouble for, or is it endorsed by your religious community?

None whatsoever, because I am not engaged in proselytizing.

I'm wondering whether the hypocrisy here is at the individual level or if it's more systemic.

It is quite apparent your unnecessarily aggressive response is riddled with the failure to objectively read my posts and their content as they are indicating insecurities on your part for an open comparison of religious beliefs.

i can only assume and hope your failure to read and communicate reasonably, and aggressive hyperbole is an individual problem, and does not reflect the views of the forum.

Notice the title of the thread. The subject is the nature of the universal in belief systems including the belief in God and the belief in no God. I described the Unitarian Universalists as also believing in a more embracing universal view from a more humanist perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

Um, does this mean there are only two possibilities, the wrong way and your way?

No, this discussion is a comparative dialogue. I also brought up an example of a humanist belief system, the Unitarian Universalists, which supports a diverse religious view from a more universal perspective.

As far as the Baha'i Faith goes I was asked questions and answered them the best I could.

Are you actually reading my posts and putting them in an objective perspective?

 

[Audie]

No, this discussion is a comparative dialogue. I also brought up an example of a humanist belief system, the Unitarian Universalists, which supports a diverse religious view from a more universal perspective.

As far as the Baha'i Faith goes I was asked questions and answered them the best I could.

Are you actually reading my post and putting them in an objective perspective?

There are two ways logically and rational to explain the evidence. The first is that there are no God(s),.............

The second is the view of the Baha'i Faith that God exists......

Just checking. I figured you were more thoughtful than
"my way or the highway''

Thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are two ways logically and rational to explain the evidence. The first is that there are no God(s),.............

The second is the view of the Baha'i Faith that God exists......

Just checking. I figured you were more thoughtful than
"my way or the highway''

Thanks.

What you read was a statement of belief from my perspective. Actually, from a theist perspective of the belief in universal Revelation progressively through all religions the Baha'i Faith is probably one of only a few that believe this.

Some New Age religions and secret societies from the 50's through to today do propose a syncrinistic view of religions as multiple sources of Divine guidance, but not progressive Revelation from God.

The theme of the thread remains a comparison of religions and belief systems, and yes I will sincerely present my beliefs in this thread.

 

[Hawkins]

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.

The irony is this statement remains your own faith of belief with nothing substantial.

 

[Desert Snake]

From an objective position without bias, Christian God or Gods represent one of many world views and cultural view of what is God, Revelation or no Revelation or no God.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. Aside from concept, God, is actually, a name. It is the 'name of the biblical God'..
Thats why people use the word 'god', to describe other gods.

Other gods are described the same way, in the Bible, false gods, his god, as in a different god, so forth.

Hence your premise, is, what is your concept of the Biblical God, if you do not use use descriptors, or explain that you do not mean, 'The Biblical God'.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

 

[Ra Daughter]

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.

I agree and surely understand your point that it is a problem for those who claim God and don't actually know God directly. The imagination cannot be tamed with notions of truth from the mouth of babes in adult form. Experience is supreme where information ends.

 

[shunyadragon]

The irony is this statement remains your own faith of belief with nothing substantial.

Went over your head big time! I am not in this to prove my belief. This a comparison concerning what logically and rationally reflects a universal world view of either a Theist God or no God, My belief in this thread is strictly descriptive, and that it does reflect a universal inclusive world view that includes science.

I believe that atheists have a logical and rational view of the universal nature of our existence without God. Science is not contradictory as universal understanding of our physical existence and Natural Laws. They see the same evidence I see and make the philosophical naturalist assumption that there is no evidence for Gods therefore no Gods exist, or as some describe it there is reason to believe in Gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree and surely understand your point that it is a problem for those who claim God and don't actually know God directly. The imagination cannot be tamed with notions of truth from the mouth of babes in adult form. Experience is supreme where information ends.

The claim to "know" God from the human perspective remains anecdotal and subjective without convincing information that may be called evidence.

. . . and you are still faced with the issue of many many people coming up with many conflicting views of God and claiming to know. Which reflects the greater universal of the diverse history of the millennia of the human relationship with the Divine, and reflects the natural history of humanity, life, our planet, solar system, galaxy and our universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you figure? I'm not quite following how what I wrote there suggests this in any fashion, and it definitely isn't consistent with typical polytheistic theology. In polytheism, the gods govern (or literally are) various facets of reality, from the land to the sea to the sky and ideals like justice and love. It's impossible for them not to be involved and connected to everything.

Like all world views that believe in God or Gods, or whatever Divine worlds beyond or own I could not demonstrate any as true nor false.

The problem is how can this or any other polytheistic view you could propose that represent a universal Theistic world view with a Creator.

 

[Quintessence]

Like all world views that believe in God or Gods, or whatever Divine worlds beyond or own I could not demonstrate any as true nor false.

The problem is how can this or any other polytheistic view you could propose that represent a universal Theistic world view with a Creator.

Why would it need to? Can you explain why this is a problem? Put another way, why bother with a universal theistic worldview with some monotheistic god in the first place? I don't understand what's wrong with other perspectives, and why that diversity is overlooked in the OP. I'm starting to wonder where the "comparative religion" is in this topic, I guess?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why would it need to? Can you explain why this is a problem? Put another way, why bother with a universal theistic worldview with some monotheistic god in the first place? I don't understand what's wrong with other perspectives, and why that diversity is overlooked in the OP. I'm starting to wonder where the "comparative religion" is in this topic, I guess?

The subject of the thread is
What is the universal God or no God?

If you wish to reject the universal either theistic or atheist fine, but that is not the subject of the thread.

The real world and our universe is a reality that exists in the universal regardless of whether God exists or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think you understood what I wrote. Aside from concept, God, is actually, a name. It is the 'name of the biblical God'..
Thats why people use the word 'god', to describe other gods.

Other gods are described the same way, in the Bible, false gods, his god, as in a different god, so forth.

I try to avoid this biased convention of capitalizing God to refer to one's own God, and other gods are not capitalized in essence because they are false gods, and do not exist. In Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch other tribes Gods were acknowledged, but considered lesser Gods.

Hence your premise, is, what is your concept of the Biblical God, if you do not use use descriptors, or explain that you do not mean, 'The Biblical God'.

The Biblical God is a fallible human view of God or Gods in the ancient view of anthropomorphic Gods of the Bible. This is similar to other ancient tribal views of God around the world. Revelation is within the scripture as spiritual teaching, stories, and spiritual laws, despite the human influence of creating Gods in their own image. I believe through the ancient world one of the important goals of Revelation was to reestablish pure monotheism, and reject polytheism, and the worship of idols, which continues to be a problem in Christianity today.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

A rather mythical anthropomorphic view of nature.