"Buddhism has been a religion of practices than of grace. It changed from the radical pluralism of Hinayana to the absolutism of the Mahayana.

points to just how very out of date this quote is. Hinayana is an ugly polemical epithet devised by the Mahayana as put-down word of those did not accept their points of view. “Radical pluralism,” of course, refers to the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma.

Early Western scholars used the term “hinayana” as a convenient way of referring to those schools that were not Mahayana, and they often uncritically accepted the Mahayana polemical baggage that went with it, Most Western scholars now recognize that this is inappropriate and do not use the word in hinayana in that way.

“Radical pluralism” is how early Western scholars characterized the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma traditions, conflating the various traditions treating them as pretty much the same. The problem is that the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka is clearly not a radical pluralism, and the Mahayana critique directed against the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma has no relevance to the Theravadin Abhidhamma.

Characterizing the Mahayana as absolutist is, again, an old scholarship that shows no understanding of the actual living Madhyamaka traditions of the Mahayana.

Also, your appeal to personal experience is meaningless. I can just as easily appeal to my no less profound and equally certified experiences, but your experiences and my experiences are just that, our respective experiences, and they certainly are not an objective basis for claiming what is objectively true about what the Buddhist traditions teach. And what the Buddhist traditions teach, and with good reason, is that the idea of a god as some sort of absolute reality is the product of faulty meditation and the misapprehension of a the notion of a self, an atman.

"The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance, essence or personality); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 19

"In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad we read a dialogue in which Yajnavalkya is asked the crucial question: Kati devah, how many are the devas [gods]?  His first answer is a quotation from a Vedic text: 'Three hundred and three and three thousand and three." Pressed on, he reduces the number first to thirty-three, then to six, then to three, to two, to one-and-a-half and finally to One.  'Which is the one deva [god]?' And he answers: "The prana (breath, life).  The Brahman.  He is called tyat (that).' Though the devas still figure in sacrificial practice and religious debate, the question 'Who is God?' is here answered in terms that has remained the Hindu answer ever since.

Also from the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad"

10.  Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahma. It knew only itself (atmanam): "I am Brahma!" Therefore it became the All.  Whoever of the gods became awakened to this, he indeed became it; likewise in the case of seers (rsi), likewise in the case of men.  Seeing this, indeed, the seer Vamadeva began:-

     I was Manu and the sun (surya)!

This is so now also.  Whoever thus knows "I am Brahma!" becomes this All; even the gods have not power to prevent his becoming thus, for he becomes their self (atman).

So whoever worships another divinity [than his Self], thinking "He is one and I another," he knows not.  He is like a sacrificial animal for the gods.  Verily, indeed, as many animals would be of service to a man, even so each single person is of service to the gods.  If even one animal is taken away, it is not pleasant.  What, then, if many?  Therefore it is not pleasing to those [gods] that men should know this.

11. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahma, one only.

The Buddha responds (SN IV 16):

"Monks, I will teach you the All. And what is the All? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the All. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected this All, I shall make known another All' -- that would be a mere empty boast."

BG: Thus the Gods that received the Dhamma from the Buddha are non-different to the One God of Brahmanism. For this reason, in Hinduism (Brahmanism), the Buddha is considered to have been an avatar of God.

Before claiming such a thing, it really helps to actually know what it is that the Buddha taught. The Buddha states (Anguttara-Nikaya X 29):

'As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold world system reaches [in other words, the universe], the Great God is the highest being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.'

And in the 83rd discourse of the Middle Length Sayings:

"God truthfully answers [the questions of the Buddha] in succession: 'Good sir, those views I previously held are not mine; I see the radiance the world of God as passing; how could I say that I am permanent and eternal?'"

In other words God is still bound by karma and union with, realization of, God is within the realm of karma, which is inferior to the attainment of nirvana.

BG: Whilst I respect thast this forum is for discussing a Buddhist view of the Creator God, does it not seem a little subjective and self-defeating to only allow the Buddhist view.

If you want to put forth a differing point of view as you have been doing, fine, then expect that it will meet with a Buddhist analysis and response. So far, there is nothing in what you have said in your advocacy of a god that cannot be responded to with what the Buddha plainly, clearly taught.

And again, the points made in your signature reflect out of date, inaccurate understanding of Buddhism.