I know there is some here let's talk.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
Please be aware that the word God mean the one with no equal, there is only one God and due to differences in cultures people knows him in different ways.
God want all his children to come back to him, why he would discriminate on culture? Time, place and circumstance. There is only 1 God, be careful on doing an offense to God.
There is one God and He had made His characteristics known to us so that we would be able to discern between those who claim to be equal to Him as Satan had tried to do and He that is the One God.
If what you say is true, then can you explain the differences in the characteristics between God and each of the false gods you are defending?
I look forward to a healthy conversation.
I don't know if it could be healthy with you, but lets give it a shot. Who are the false Gods? There is a fallacy there, there is only 1 God, the rest are known as Demigods, or as you know them as Angels.
Materialistic people tend to worship anything, from dogs, to artists, so many worship these powerful demigods, but that doesn't mean they are, or present themselves as God... They can grant boons, as any very rich person can, but when they do is under the purview of "God"
So, when you say false gods, your are either mistaken or you don't have proper knowledge. There is only one God.
Allah is a false God.
https://www.ciu.edu/content/allah-islam-same-yahweh-christianity
There's a key issue between Christianity and Vedic religions on the nature of what constitutes a "god." In Christianity, we inherit from Judaism a recognition that the term "god" can only legitimately refer to the Most High God and that any other use of the term is done in pretense. There is a distinct understanding that the Most High God is jealous and does not share His highest honor which is carried under the term "god." In Vedic faiths, the term "god" is generally used for lesser emanations like Devas as well as the Supreme Being. (which they have named Brahma)
There is an issue in terms of a Creator/Creation distinction which is strongly maintained in the Abrahamic tradition. The Vedic tradition seems to interpret reality as layers of Absolute, "Divine+Creation" and Creation-only. Consequently, there's issues arising from both doctrine and ontology. The ontological aspect that it's less beneficial to worship a middle man than to worship the Source. Yes, a common objection raised by many non-Christians is that most Christians are Trinitarians and recognize that God reveals Himself in three personal forms but this is not understanding the doctrine. The Trinity are not separate beings acting as middlemen but coequal personal aspects of the same Divine Godhead/Nature. The Nature is indivisible. The distinction is in terms of a personal economy of Divine actions which manifest in distinct persons: God the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit whom are necessary to understand and receive Salvation.
Hinduism sees all Devas as coequal emanations of Brahma worthy of worship by themselves. This is a serious conflict with Christian monotheism since YHWH is a jealous Supreme Being who does not like the highest honors due to Him alone being given to lesser beings. Angels do not seek worship. While some traditions of Christianity may venerate creatures like angels and saints in a commemorative or petitionary sense this may never be raised to the same sense of absolute devotion and trust that belongs to the Most High God.
That's why in the Vedic tradition are called devas and not Param isvara, and Brahma is the secondary creator not the Supreme absolute truth, God, hence the term God, even in the Vedic tradition belongs to the one, the Param isvara, the rest are below. That's why it's a falacy to say that there are many gods. That's why you can find in the Katha-Upanishad nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti dhīrās teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13) He is the prime eternal among all eternals. He is the supreme living entity of all living entities, and He alone is maintaining all life. Hinduism is an umbrella term for many different practices which are deviations from sanatana dharma or Vaishnavism, that it's based on the worship of the supreme controller, the source of everything, the supreme Brahman, God. So, as I said before, there's only one God, many can say what they want but that will not change the truth. It's an interesting practise that of which many say my God is the true God, but that carries dissonance in itself, because your God being the source of all life in itself, that who has no second, is the God of all and not only for those who worship him but also for those who negate him. Those who still abide by that presentation are not only not understanding the underlying connotation of the word God but are also negating all his own brothers, sons of God. Whose father will reject his son? I pray you try to understand that I'm not trying to minimize your faith but trying to enhance the glory of God, father of all.
I don't think you can claim that.
Yeah, no... auto correct :P Thanks
Hmm. That's interesting. As you can tell, I'm operating from a Christian paradigm so a lot of your beliefs are foreign to my understanding. I apologize for any mistakes I made about you here.
So, I guess I wasn't really aware that the Vedic tradition can be interpreted to teach a single Godhead like that. Your Scriptures have a lot of references to Devas in such a way that it comes off as worshiping those rather than a God above that. I know Brahma is seen to be involved in every other Deva's operation. I also know I've read points about Para-Brahman and Brahma reincarnating but that's not really something that clicks well for me. After all, Judaism has more experience dealing with the concept of reincarnation (gilgul ha neshamot) in its mystical literature than Christianity. We emphasize the Resurrection of the Dead (t'chiyat ha metim) to everlasting life (aionion zoe) at the end of time. So, in that sense, the closest concept I have is a "type" which is used to describe the connection of Elijah and John the Baptist. But that's not the same soul being cycled around.
Anyway, refocusing... So what it seems like you're saying that the "reincarnating Brahma" is more like a benevolent Demiurge (to borrow a term from Gnosticism that is representative) or the Jewish idea of Metatron (the angel who helps YHWH create) rather than what the Abrahamic faiths understand as the Most High God/El Elyon. That's rather different than I was expecting.
I suspect there's a lot of hidden history buried in the Middle East of a prior conflict between the Vedic and Abrahamic religions that's been somewhat buried which might be involved in producing these differences. Abraham is said in Genesis/Bereshith to have come from Ur Kasidim and rejected his fathers (Terah's) gods in favor of El Elyon/El Shaddai. (The Most High) Also Zoroaster also rejected Daevas and promoted Ahura Mazda as his vision of the Supreme God. Likely both of these were confluent into the Jewish tradition's own rejection of "other gods" which ultimately gave us our understanding in Christianity that the term Divinity is restricted only to the Most High God as St. Paul expressed in 1 Corinthians 8:6. As I said before, the most distinction we have that might imply multiplicity is that God is also Triune. We understand God necessarily operating in thee distinct "hypostases" to accommodate the principle of the Logos and Divine Wisdom that are necessary for Salvation to exist without dividing His Nature and Will. The Trinity isn't independent wills acting in cooperation with the Father but an economy of God's eternal work manifesting itself into distinct personal manifestations.
I get the sense from Vedic literature that these Devas act with their own will and their connection to Brahma is merely in the sense that all souls derive from the origin.