God?

Do you believe in God guys? What's your opinion on God? Who is the God?

I did not want to mention God and religion before, because I didn't want to offend anybody or want any conflicts, but I'm just curious.

Is anyone here religious?

My family is Buddhist. WE believe in the Buddha.

Well... even in Buddhism, the Buddha is not God, nor a divine being. He was a human, just like us. According to some (Hinduists), Buddha was the 9th avatar of Vishnu, therefore an incarnation of God, just like Jesus, but that's not what Buddhists believe into.

Buddhism is the only "non-theistic" religion in the world. Which means that they don't even mention God in Buddhism anywhere. In some traditions they sometimes mention "devas", and some people translate these as "gods", which is wrong. Devas are a race, a race that lives in the other world, and a race that is above humans. The God doesn't belong to a race. God is only one, a creator of everything.

Buddhism doesn't teach about the God. Buddhism is more a way of life than a religion. Despite being a Buddhist, you can still easily believe or not believe in the God.

Do you? Do you believe in God, the creator of everything visible and invisible?
and why?

I am a Christian and I do believe in God. Though, I'm not really that religious.

That's cool

I believe in God as well. I follow Hinduism, but my mom is Christian so I tend to follow both. Regardless, there is a God in my belief.

Also Chrom's right, the Buddha wasn't technically a God. He was instead a prince from India who created Buddhism which is seen to be as a way of life. My family is pretty open to other religions, so we're pretty respectful of Buddhism as well. Though I won't go deeper into the topic in order to avoid flame wars as the way of how the Buddha is viewed varies from person to person (either as a God or a divine being).

Cool

Hinduism is Awesome. And actually Hinduism and Christianity are full of similarities. It's often misunderstood and misinterpreted as a polytheistic religion, and not many people know that Hinduism is actually monotheistic. They believe in one God (called Brahman) and the "Devi" they believe into are mistranslated and misunderstood as "gods". They are not because a word "God" can't be plural. The God doesn't belong to a race, and the God is only one - Brahman. "Devi" are a race - they are supreme to humans - but nothing can be near to God.

Also the holy trinity of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva where they are three forms of a same God - just like the trinity in Christianity. Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Maintainer and Shiva the Destroyer.

Also Krishna is very similar to Jesus, where they are both sons of God, since the Krishna is an 8th avatar of Vishnu.

Although I don't believe in "God's children"; "Trinities" and stuff, I just believe in one and only God, I absolutely love Hinduism. It's great. It has many many denominations and there are countless "versions" and "branches" of it. To what branch of Hinduism do you belong to? Vaishnavism was most popular one I guess...

My Chrom, you certainly have an extensive knowledge on the various religions. :0

Indeed, Hinduism and Christianity do share similar views and I assume that's why some families (including my own) tend to mingle in between either religion. Regardless, despite the presence of several Gods/Goddesses in Hinduism, altogether there is a solid belief of a single God watching over us in the end. Thus, the trinity of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva all represent different phases of life as well (birth/protection of life/death) separately at differing points of time. That's also a way of how I view the trinity myself.

On the other hand, my family and I actually belong to the branch of Hinduism known as Shaivism/Saivam.

Thanks,
And I don't like to use the term "gods" or "goddesses", I prefer the original word: "deva" or "devi". Since I think that there shouldn't be more forms of the word "God". Although the word "deva" does in fact mean "deity", I prefer not to translate it.

Well in the meantime I was interested in religions a lot, and now I do know a lot about them. Many friends thought that I should study theology or music, since I am interested in it a lot, but instead, now in college i'm studying pedagogy... xD

No problem Chrom, and that's understandable in regards to the terms of deva/devi. In fact, deva/devi is commonly used in Hinduism as well, so you have a valid point there.

Also excellent decision, pedagogy sounds interesting! I'm glad you were able to find a field you enjoy to study about.  Your posts certainly show your knowledge of religions as well, so that's pretty neat!

Of course I do. There's no need for proof. It's all around us, from a tiny atom to the gigantic universe. I'm not religious though.

Also, I think evolution is driven by Him and He created the Big Bang.

Also, I believe in Jesus too. <3


Therefore, I voted yes. ^_^

I couldn't agree more

What do you think Jesus was? Son of God? God? A prophet of God?

Opinions about him vary from religion to religion

I believe Jesus is the son of God.

I agree with osprey. I'm a Christian. Jesus is the son of God. My goal is to be more like him. Even though that's impossibly difficult.

Also I could never understand evolution. It makes sense in some ways, but for me it also seems too far fetched. So I believe Gpd created everything.

Will, try this:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Evolution can easily be intertwined with God. ^_^

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml

The concept of "Son of God" has always been interesting to me... There are many different understandings of it and opinions vary.

"Son of God" (Ben Elohim in Hebrew) is a term that appears many times in the Holy Bible; in both Old and New testaments.

Spoiler:

So... from reading the Bible, one can see that many people were called that way.. David, Israel, Jesus... (peace be upon them) but what does that mean.. God's son? God's firstborn son? God's only begotten son? How can multiple persons be only begotten children? Hmm..?

In English language, lust like in Serbian this doesn't make any sense... but.. In a Semitic language (like Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic) it's much different.

At first glance, the Holy Bible and the Glorious Qur'an are contradictory. The Bible clearly says that the Jesus (pbuh.) is the Son of God, and the Qur'an clearly says that he isn't, and that there isn't such a thing as the son of God:

Spoiler:

But... if we look at the original language of the holy scriptures, we would find a much different case... For example, let's take Arabic: The original Qur'anic text, which says that the Jesus (pbuh) is not a son of God goes like this:

"وَلَدٌ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ "
('Innamā Allahu 'Ilahun Wāĥidun ۖ Subĥānahu 'An Yakūna Lahu Waladun - Allah is one God, exalted is He above having a son.).

And the Biblical text, where it's said that the Jesus (pbuh) is the Son of god, in Arabic, goes like this:

أمّا الضّابِطُ الرُّومانِيُّ، [g] وَالحُرّاسُ الَّذِينَ كانُوا يَحرُسُونَ جَسَدَ يَسُوعَ، فَلَمّا رَأَوْا الزَّلْزَلَةَ وَالأحداثَ الأُخرَى، ارتَعَبُوا جِدّاً وَقالُوا: «كانَ هَذا حَقّاً ابْنَ اللهِ!»

(Ama aldabitu alruwmanīu wālhurasu aladẖīna kanūa yahrusūna jasada Yasū'a falama rūawa alzalzalata wūlahdatẖa alaukẖray arta'abūa jidaaⁿ waqalūa: «kana hadẖa haqaaⁿ ibna Allahi!» - Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying: «Truly this was the Son of God!»)


If we look closely, there are two different words that both in English language translate as "son". Arabic words "walad" and "ibn". (Hebrew also has equivalents "walad/nulad" and "ben"). The word found in Qur'an, "walad", litteraly means "the one that's been born", or physical/biological son; while the Biblical "ibn" means an metaforical/spiritual son. These are two very different words. Many people held that spiritual title of God's child, but, what Qur'an is trying to say is that Jesus (pbuh) is not literally son of God! It's quite confusing... at the same time he is a Son of God, and isn't son of God...

Anyway... Jesus (pbuh) was a human... just like any of us... God may have created everything and everyone, but He hasn't begotten a son.

Qur'an 5:17:
"They have certainly disbelieved who say that God is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent God at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and God is over all things competent."

Qur'an 5:72:
"72 They have certainly disbelieved who say, " God is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship God , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with God - God has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers."

"73 They have certainly disbelieved who say, " God is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment."

"74 So will they not repent to God and seek His forgiveness? And God is Forgiving and Merciful."

"75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded."

76 Say, "Do you worship besides God that which holds for you no [power of] harm or benefit while it is God who is the Hearing, the Knowing?"

By depth study of both Holy Scriptures, I have came to conclusion that they are actually not contradictory one to another.

- Both say that there is one God.
- Both say that the Jesus (pbuh) is not God (I can prove this)
- I can explain the trinity also, and I have already explained their view on Jesus, the Son of God (pbuh).

The only thing remaining contradictory is the description of some events.. primarily, the description of Jesus' birth.

But, if you look at the Bible, you see that there are 4 different gospels in it, with a slightly different stories. Qur'an just helds another one.. .a fifth gospel of Jesus' birth.

For example, the angel's comings. The Gospel of Matthew says that the angel came to John to tell him that Mary is pregnant with the holy spirit and that she didn't cheat on him, while the Gospel of John says that the angel actually came to Mary before she got pregnant to tell her that she is pregnant with the holy spirit.

The Qur'an says that the angel came to Mary.

The place of Jesus' birth: The Bible says that he was born in either a cave or a shack. Qur'an says he was born in a desert. And that Mary was alone when she gave birth to Jesus (pbuh). She came home bringing baby Jesus, and everyone was angry at her, so the newborn Jesus started talking, saying that he is a prophet sent by God; and that Mary is a virgin.

The tomb of Jesus (pbuh): The Gospel of Matthew says that when people approached his tomb, "one angel descended from the sky, rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.";

The Gospel of Mark says that when people approached the thomb, "the stone was already rolled away, and there was one young man sitting on the right side of the thomb.";

The Gospel of Luke says that "the stone was rolled away, and there were two man standing by them.";

And the Gospel of John says that when they came, "the stone was taken away, and the tomb was empty."


- So... now... we see that the difference between the Qur'anic and the Biblical description of events, is not more different, than the difference between the Gospels.
Therefore, Qur'an is like just another Gospel, and it absolutely agrees (and belongs together) with the Holy Bible.

Wow.. I haven't been here in quite a while... heh

Delsin Rowe wrote:My family is Buddhist. WE believe in the Buddha.

I have encountered many Buddhists who told me that they "believe in the Buddha".. of course, I didn't understand what they mean by that, but, now, I believe I do. You see, the book Srimad Bhagavatam explains it pretty well, in Canto 1, Chapter 3, Part 24:

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist. Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gayā (Bihar) as the son of Añjanā, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas. At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing. Less intelligent men of the Age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization. He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God. Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him."