Is there is a difference between God Absolute and God the creator? (tradition, followers)

[ben d]

Hi Rolling Stone,
Thank you for your post, my head hurts when I try to follow your train of thought though.
A few comments...

"understand what you're getting at (I think), but there is the Trinity doctrine in Christian thought (though not all) which is not entirely dissimilar to Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu (the Sustaining aspect)."
"Edit: the monistic I AM is the philosophical equivalent of Brahman."

I agree. Brahma and Shiva represent the complementary opposites which are aspects of the Brahman, much the same as yin and yan are complementary aspects of the Tau, and Good and Evil are complementary aspects of the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis. Incidentally, it is my understanding the Vishnu represents the reflection of Brahman on the level of Brahma and Shiva.

"Many theological difficulties are consequent to the dislocation of creatorship".

A very astute observation,... if some degree of consensus could be attained concerning the relationship of the Absolute and the acts of creation and destruction taking place continuously within It, it would free up a lot of resources presently tied up in arguments arising from misunderstanding.
Can you imagine Christian theologians reaching a consensus that Brahman is the same as I AM and that the emanated complementary aspect of Brahma and Shiva are the equivalent God and Satan? Before that can happen, Christian theologians will need to understand that it really only the Absolute that is worthy of the name God if it to establish credibility among the learned of other religious traditions as having a true monotheistic religious pedigree.

[ben d]

Hi Orontes,

Orontes
"You have misunderstood. I didn't ask about pantheism, but panentheism. These are distinct notions."

Orontes, this is not a word that is in any dictionary that I know of, but I googled it and came up with these two definitions..
Panetheism: Idea that God is more than nature, while nature is part of God.
Panetheism: The belief that the universe is entirely contained within a deity
I would generally be inclined to agree with the gist of these ideas as far as they go, but there is much more to it than that. The unknown can never be known by using the known as a means of defining it, nor can its Infinitude be ever determined by measurement using calibrated finite instruments, etc.,etc..

"This doesn't address the logical problem: atemporality and temporality are mutually exclusive. You assert:

1) God Absolute is atemporal.
2) All other things are temporal
3) All other things have their being in an atemporal God (God Absolute)

The problem is the meaning of atemporal and temporal are antithetical. Your point 3) asserts a connectivity. This connectivity that from base rational grounds is absurd. This would indicate one would either have to abandon reason to hold the view or abandon the view to hold to reason."

I don't see the meaning of atemporal and temporal as being antithetical or mutually exclusive,.. as I don't see 'endless duration' and a passing 'moment' as being antithetical or mutually exclusive.
Atemporal is endless duration, whilst temporal implies finite duration.
All temporal finite events are taking place continuously in the atemporal continuity of renewal and destruction.
Temporal events should not be seen as 'loose cannons' having no connection with the deck of the ship on which they are rolling about on, they are happening in a cosmic drama known as God absolute.
Orontes, are you trying to apply Boolean algebraic logic or Venn diagrams to get to the logical truth here? If so, please understand that Boolean algebraic and/or Venn diagram logic only produce correct results in the background/context of an appropriate universal set. In this case the Atemporal in Venn would be considered the universal set or in Boolean, it would be represented by One,.. so each Temporal function that is a part of the universal set/One will have its complementary opposite.,...e.g. good and not-good, within it. However there is no complementary opposite of the universal set/One under consideration when applying Boolean and Venn logic to problem solving. Any and all variables ANDed or ORed with the universal set results in the answer of the universal set!..in this case Atemporal.
I know that Atemporal appears to be the opposite of Temporal due to prefix 'A', but in the context, the semantics if you like in which we are using these words, they are not on the same playing field and are not opposites but one is contained in the other. So as to not create any further confusion, let us agree to use Eternal or a word of your choice instead of Atemporal....OK.

"I don't understand your reply. You state we are created of the "stuff of God Absolute" and that "it reveals itself to those who love the truth" but you said God Absolute cannot be known by any knowledge or imagined. This seems like another contradiction."

Yes, I understand your question and will answer you as succinctly as I can, but to understand it you will have to put aside your mental faculty for dualistic discernment for a moment and put on your intuitive 'mystical' hat.
God absolute can only be revealed by God absolute, and the medium through which this revelation takes place is God absolute, and the one who receives the revelation is God absolute.

A sufi mystic put it this way...

I thought of You so often,
I finally became You,
Little by little You drew nearer,
Slowly but slowly I passed away.

It seems to me that conceptual thinking, is natural and necessary for functioning in this world, but when applying it to the great unknown, it can only give us a mere 'taste' of true understanding, so perhaps the meditative process will eventually need to be developed and practiced if one really has the thirst to drink of the water of life?
Or...you can not serve two masters without serving one second best!

[Rolling_Stone]

The Hindus have a saying: In the beginning God (Brahman) was one. Being one, he became lonely and sp he became many.

I take a lot my understanding from The URANTIA Book, so my understanding of the Trinity is perhaps more than a little odd by Christian standards. While the I AM is equivalent to Brahman (at least in my understanding), the Christian Trinity are functionally different. The primary differentiation is the deifiable and the undeifiable or spirit and matter. Mind is the technique of unifying the ever-widening divergencies. The Trinity consists of the Father-I AM, Spirit-Personality (which is the personality of the I AM divested of non-personal realities), and Mind-Personality. This is the simple version, but it is enough to see that it serves the same purpose as what you present; i.e., to get from the One to the many and back.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Not really. The logic you are using is "A" cannot be both "A" and "not-A" at the same time in the same relationship. This is true, however, "A" can be both "A" and "not-A" at the same time and same place in a different relationship. I know it's not quite the same, but it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that one object can exist in many places at the same time (space being the relational difference).

The issue, is not perspectival (as a relationship may indicate) but tied to identity statements. It is definitional. For example, were one to say a square is comprised of four right angles, accepting that notion excludes the assertion a square is not comprised of four right angels. Further, one cannot say a square is comprised of four right angles and not comprised of four right angels.

Edit: the monistic I AM is the philosophical equivalent of Brahman.

This idea is problematic as the I AM necessarily indicates individuation and thus is pluralistic. The Old Testament follows a metaphysical pluralism.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by ben d

Orontes, this is not a word that is in any dictionary that I know of, but I googled it and came up with these two definitions..
Panetheism: Idea that God is more than nature, while nature is part of God.
Panetheism: The belief that the universe is entirely contained within a deity
I would generally be inclined to agree with the gist of these ideas as far as they go, but there is much more to it than that. The unknown can never be known by using the known as a means of defining it, nor can its Infinitude be ever determined by measurement using calibrated finite instruments, etc.,etc..

Hi ben d,

I thought your stance had a panentheist bent to it. Paul Tillich would be a simple example of a panentheist positioning.

Originally Posted by me

"This doesn't address the logical problem: atemporality and temporality are mutually exclusive. You assert:

Originally Posted by me

1) God Absolute is atemporal.
2) All other things are temporal
3) All other things have their being in an atemporal God (God Absolute)

The problem is the meaning of atemporal and temporal are antithetical. Your point 3) asserts a connectivity. This connectivity that from base rational grounds is absurd. This would indicate one would either have to abandon reason to hold the view or abandon the view to hold to reason."

Atemporality is the absence of time. It is not simply an endlessness, but an erasure of any notion of time. The prefix acts as the negation of time. There is no duration as there is no measure. There is no "taking place continuously" as there is no present: no now.

Orontes, are you trying to apply Boolean algebraic logic or Venn diagrams to get to the logical truth here?

I am simply applying basic material conditionals to identity statements.

Note: Given atemporal and temporal are opposite, by definition, I don't think one can opt for a set/subset regimen unless one has previously established contectivity.

So as to not create any further confusion, let us agree to use Eternal or a word of your choice instead of Atemporal....OK.

I think eternal is a less problematic term as the focus then becomes duration and not the absence of time.

Originally Posted by me

"I don't understand your reply. You state we are created of the "stuff of God Absolute" and that "it reveals itself to those who love the truth" but you said God Absolute cannot be known by any knowledge or imagined. This seems like another contradiction."

Originally Posted by me

This leaves the question: can the Absolute be known and/or imagined or no? You appear to be saying the answer is yes and referencing a mystical epistemic. Is this right? If so, how are you understanding mystical experience? Is the view you are opting for the erasure or extinction of self (per the Sufi reference)? Is it an intuition and thereby unmediated knowing without subject extinction (i.e. St. Paul)?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Orontes

The issue, is not perspectival (as a relationship may indicate) but tied to identity statements. It is definitional.

Bed said: "I know that Atemporal appears to be the opposite of Temporal due to prefix 'A', but in the context, the semantics if you like in which we are using these words, they are not on the same playing field and are not opposites but one is contained in the other. So as to not create any further confusion, let us agree to use Eternal or a word of your choice instead of Atemporal..."

This describes a perspectival issue.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by ben d

My understanding is that God absolute is immanent in the universe but simultaneously transcendent.

This is panentheism.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Willamena

[/font][/size][/font]
Bed said: "I know that Atemporal appears to be the opposite of Temporal due to prefix 'A', but in the context, the semantics if you like in which we are using these words, they are not on the same playing field and are not opposites but one is contained in the other.

Hello,

One can't subsume the one into the other simply by assertion. Further, perspective would necessitate a viewing subject. No such subject is referenced (nor indeed can be given atemporality is not an empirical category). What one has are two posits: temporality and atemporality as idenity statements. Now Ben has now qualified atemporality to eternity or endlessness, which is a different beast.