Which one is right?

Throughout the history of human kind, there have been thousands of religions and millions of gods. Which one is the 'true' god (if there is a god)?

Originally posted by Mungi The Fungi
Throughout the history of human kind, there have been thousands of religions and millions of gods. Which one is the 'true' god (if there is a god)?

The god of truth, love, compassion, justice, etc.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The god of truth, love, compassion, justice, etc.

Why would the true god have those traits rather than things like anger, fury, or jealousy?

Originally posted by Mungi The Fungi
Why would the true god have those traits rather than things like anger, fury, or jealousy?

Because these are the building blocks of harmony and peace.

So far as I can tell, the prophets Krishna, Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus, Muhammed, Bahá'u'lláh, etc. all recognized these traits. Of course, the religions that sprang from the teachings of these prophets are a different story.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The god of truth, love, compassion, justice, etc.

Can't name Him can you?

Originally posted by josephw
Can't name Him can you?

Telling that a name is what's important to you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Because these are the building blocks of harmony and peace.

So far as I can tell, the prophets Krishna, Siddhārtha Gautama, Jesus, Muhammed, Bahá'u'lláh, etc. all recognized these traits. Of course, the religions that sprang from the teachings of these prophets are a different story.

Some civilizations have been built on war and conquest, things that a loving god probably wouldn't allow.

There are also religions where war and sacrifices, sometimes human, are vital. Even though these religions (thankfully) haven't gained as much popularity others, I don't see why the true god shouldn't have traits of gods from those religions.

Originally posted by Mungi The Fungi
Some civilizations have been built on war and conquest, things that a loving god probably wouldn't allow.

There are also religions where war and sacrifices, sometimes human, are vital. Even though these religions (thankfully) haven't gained as much popularity others, I don't see why the true god shouldn't have traits of gods from those religions.

That's an interesting opinion.

Do you really expect to get anything more than an opinion?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Telling that a name is what's important to you.

"Telling that a name is what's important to you."

Actually, grammar is kinda important. Can you say, 'grammar'? 😕

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Telling that a name is what's important to you."

Actually, grammar is kinda important. Can you say, 'grammar'? 😕[/b]

Seriously. I don't think you want to go there.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Telling that a name is what's important to you.

Well—

Since you and I have been arguing recently, and—

Since this is my last pass-through here for awhile, and—

Without judging what josephw was after, or not—

Bingo!

I tend to prefer the word “coherence” to “harmony” (well, not really: only in discourse on here when I’m trying to be almost “clinical” about it), and I tend to prefer the Hebrew word Shalom, which implies not just peace but well-being, wholeness, harmony. But—

The realization of tathata is also the realization of fundamental coherence, non-separability, mutuality. That is quite demonstrable ( testable). That is what meditation is all about (it is not about metaphysics!). Human behavior in violation is—as you might put it—the result of egoistic illusion. The cure is disillusionment.

However—and this is the final loop, so to speak—illusion (maya) is part of the game that brahman (or whatever other term you want to use) plays in the manifestation of forms (individual beings; creation in Judeo-Christian parlance). [This is all just a way of speaking.] So, ultimately, maya is brahman, too.

An analogy: Two people play tennis. They come to the tennis court (cooperation/harmony); they agree to the rules of the game (cooperation/harmony); then—and only then—do they compete as adversaries in the game. It is when they forget the cooperation part, and treat each other solely as adversaries—as enemies—that they become “illusioned”. We see in human history, of course, that such illusion can run deep and complex patterns. Race versus race, religion versus religion, etc., etc.

Ultimately, we are all existents in/of the same existence. The “prophets” you list saw that. Each of them expressed what they saw in terms of the cultural paradigm in which they lived—since they were speaking to real people living within those paradigms, and were more interested in the real people than in abstractions. The Buddha was really no more interested in turning Hindus into “Buddhists” than Jesus was interested in turning Jews into “Christians”. Nevertheless, as you point out...there’s another story.

Disillusionment cannot be about exchanging one thinking-paradigm for another. Disillusionment comes when one realizes the nature of existence before all thinking, conceptualizing, words, names—what I call tathata, “just-so-suchness”—of which I also, inseparably, am. That tathata is the real—before any thinking about it.

Because it is before all words, words can “touch” it only as a map can “touch” the real terrain. The map is never the real. The nature of the real cannot be judged according to one’s map(s); on the contrary, all maps must be judged according to the (dynamic) real terrain. “Gee, according to my map, that river was over there. Something’s gone wrong with the terrain here!” No, the map is just out of date (if it was accurate to begin with).

That’s enough. See ya all down the line. Be well.

EDIT: My maps, too, are only maps. My words, only words. I borrow from many maps. But the territory is just the territory. Maps are both helpful—and dispensable. The territory just is—as it will be. That is the place to live, not in the maps—whatever names and words and concepts they use. Better to bumble along in the real territory than to spend one’s life absorbing all the details of the “right” map.

Originally posted by Mungi The Fungi
Throughout the history of human kind, there have been thousands of religions and millions of gods. Which one is the 'true' god (if there is a god)?

Mine of course!

But then I don't have one.

You already know the answer to your question:
1. If the respondent is a theist, then it is the God/gods he believes in.
2. If the respondent is an atheist then the answer is "there is no God".

So what you really should be asking is "Can you convince me that your God is the 'true' God, or can you convince me that there is no God?"
Some theists will try to pretend that they are not telling you which God is the "true" one but will tell you how to go about finding out on your own, however they will invariably still point you to their God. (which is a reasonable course of action, as they believe that their God is the true God).

Originally posted by josephw
Can't name Him can you?

I notice that you named him "Him". I am sure you can give a whole lot of other names in other languages, but you will find most of them simply mean 'God', which simply brings us back to the question of which description of a being that someone claims is God, is the correct description.

Originally posted by josephw
Can't name Him can you?

"Look, I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was: 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehova!'"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That's an interesting opinion.

Do you really expect to get anything more than an opinion?

It wasn’t just an opinion. It was an argument.
When ThinKOfOne said :

“…I don't see why the true god shouldn't have traits of gods from those religions.”

Where ‘those other religions’ supported war and sacrifices, sometimes human, he was implicitly begging the question:

“what is your premise for your belief that the true god shouldn't have traits of gods from those religions.”

And I don’t think you can answer that. Please prove me wrong…