Non-Transcendence

[Rolling_Stone]

I know I'm particularly harsh on Islam, but the other religions are equally deserving.

Absolute reality is conceptually without limit; to define its extent and nature is to place qualifications upon infinity and to attenuate the pure concept of eternity. Yet, this is exactly what religion does when it postulates the Creator as experientially transcending its creation. As I previously explained: “A” can be both “A” and “not-A” at the same time and same place in different relationships. This isn't pantheism as many might suppose. Rather, it is to agree with the Muslim philosopher Averroes, who wrote that the simple-minded believer would say, “God is in heaven.” However, he said, “A man of trained mind, knowing that God must not be represented as a physical entity in space, would say, 'God is everywhere and not merely in heaven.' But if the omnipresence of God be taken only in a physical and special sense, that formula, too, is likely in error.

“Accordingly, the philosopher more adequately expresses the purely spiritual nature of God when he asserts that God is nowhere but in himself; in fact, rather than say that God is in space he might more justly say that space and matter are in God.”


This is from a Muslim philosopher respected by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. The point I want to make is that with the understanding of a wholly transcendent God, anything can, and often is, justified in His holy name. But if Muslims, Jews and Christians took Averroes' idea seriously, they would ask, “What can I do to another that I do not also do unto God or myself?”

[ax0547]

I did not get your question - “What can I do to another that I do not also do unto God or myself?” - and so whats ur point?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by ax0547

I did not get your question - “What can I do to another that I do not also do unto God or myself?” - and so whats ur [I assume you mean your] point?

If space and matter are in God and an integral part of God, there is a fundamental unity of things and beings: whatsoever we do unto another we also do unto ourselves.

[ax0547]

well to a extent - the answer is that the affect woul dbe kind of according to the threry of relativity - depnds on how you look at it!

[Yid613]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I know I'm particularly harsh on Islam, but the other religions are equally deserving.

Absolute reality is conceptually without limit; to define its extent and nature is to place qualifications upon infinity and to attenuate the pure concept of eternity. Yet, this is exactly what religion does when it postulates the Creator as experientially transcending its creation. As I previously explained: “A” can be both “A” and “not-A” at the same time and same place in different relationships. This isn't pantheism as many might suppose. Rather, it is to agree with the Muslim philosopher Averroes, who wrote that the simple-minded believer would say, “God is in heaven.” However, he said, “A man of trained mind, knowing that God must not be represented as a physical entity in space, would say, 'God is everywhere and not merely in heaven.' But if the omnipresence of God be taken only in a physical and special sense, that formula, too, is likely in error.

“Accordingly, the philosopher more adequately expresses the purely spiritual nature of God when he asserts that God is nowhere but in himself; in fact, rather than say that God is in space he might more justly say that space and matter are in God.”


This is from a Muslim philosopher respected by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. The point I want to make is that with the understanding of a wholly transcendent God, anything can, and often is, justified in His holy name. But if Muslims, Jews and Christians took Averroes' idea seriously, they would ask, “What can I do to another that I do not also do unto God or myself?”

But precluding transcendences would also be a limitation. He must be transcendent and imamate. As His creation is unable to perceive His presents He is transcendent to it, when in fact His creation is really a part of Him. This is the deeper meaning of "Our Father Our King".

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Yid613

But precluding transcendences would also be a limitation. He must be transcendent and imamate. As His creation is unable to perceive His presents He is transcendent to it, when in fact His creation is really a part of Him. This is the deeper meaning of "Our Father Our King".

I know, and I agree. I called the OP "Non-Transcendence" to emphasize the immanent but not exclude the transcendent. Space and matter can only be in a transcendent God, but such within-ness also implies unity and shared experience.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I know, and I agree. I called the OP "Non-Transcendence" to emphasize the immanent but not exclude the transcendent. Space and matter can only be in a transcendent God, but such within-ness also implies unity and shared experience.

From my demented excuse for a viewpoint, everything is within what "god" is. By default that makes everything a part of what "god" is, as we are quite literally made of "god". In effect, we are expressions of what "god" is. "God" is very much a shared experience and we share in that experience regardless of our awareness of it.

Let's put it this way. If you put together every sentient being alive on Earth at this very moment and were able to form a "singlular entity" -- that was aware of all its constituent parts -- you would begin to approach my understanding of a multidimensional "god". If you can wrap your head around that, now expand this to include all probable situations and all permutations of events, past, present and future. Still with me? If so, now imagine an unlimited number of alternate universes, as real as the physical universe we are all familiar with, that reflect each of the above in their own right. Roll all that into One, add a dash of hot sauce, bake for thirty minutes and you are beginning to approach what I perceive as "god". (But even this doesn't do it justice.)

In my view transcendent or non-transcendance aren't particularly relevant, unless of course, they relate to our own limited concepts (non-transcendant thinking) that perhaps could use a bit of transcending.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I know I'm particularly harsh on Islam, but the other religions are equally deserving.

Agreed. And that would include Christianity.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

From my demented excuse for a viewpoint, everything is within what "god" is. By default that makes everything a part of what "god" is, as we are quite literally made of "god". In effect, we are expressions of what "god" is. "God" is very much a shared experience and we share in that experience regardless of our awareness of it.

Let's put it this way. If you put together every sentient being alive on Earth at this very moment and were able to form a "singlular entity" -- that was aware of all its constituent parts -- you would begin to approach my understanding of a multidimensional "god". If you can wrap your head around that, now expand this to include all probable situations and all permutations of events, past, present and future. Still with me? If so, now imagine an unlimited number of alternate universes, as real as the physical universe we are all familiar with, that reflect each of the above in their own right. Roll all that into One, add a dash of hot sauce, bake for thirty minutes and you are beginning to approach what I perceive as "god". (But even this doesn't do it justice.)

In my view transcendent or non-transcendance aren't particularly relevant, unless of course, they relate to our own limited concepts (non-transcendant thinking) that perhaps could use a bit of transcending.

If you're demented, so am I.

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

Agreed. And that would include Christianity.

Absolutely!