Is there is a difference between God Absolute and God the creator?

[Ben Dhyan]

A God that is absolute, in that it is eternal (can't be regulated by any concepts of time) , infinite (can't be delimited by any space) and unknowable (can't be defined by any knowledge) is what I understand Monotheism to be.
Now God the creator as generally understood by Christians does not meet the criteria above due to fact that creation occurs within time and space. For that reason, some of the older religious traditions use a different name for the Absolute to make a distinction between the One and the differentiated aspects that exist within the oneness. For example in Hindu religion, Brahma is the creator god aspect and Shiva is the destroyer aspect, but Brahman is God absolute and contains the duals aspects.
I think that the early Christian church was so intent on having an unambiguous monotheistic religious belief for its pagan followers that we inherit a confused concept of God that is monolithic and allows no distinction between the absolute Oneness of being and the hierarchy that it emanates. As a result the creator God is understood to be one and the same as the Absolute, instead of being understood as an aspect thereof.

 

[sandandfoam]

Wow.The first sentence in your post has just made clear to me what Doppelganger is talking about when he says God is an outward projection of the mind and that if you 'see' God you need to clean your mirror.
Anyway back on topic I think your view of the early Christian church is too narrow. The theology of Eriugena for example embraces 'oneness'. The early Celtic church absorbed paganism in a very ambiguous way, look at the celtic cross as an example or how Columbana referred to Christ as his Druid.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you stephenw, I actually think you were right on topic.
Concerning the the lessor mysteries of the emanations, I take your point. It is always going to be problematical to attempt to explain why Christianity, as is popularly understood today, is missing something essential that will allow non-mediated understanding of scripture.
Let me just say that it pleases me greatly to hear that 'theology of Eriugena' and the early Celtic church incorporated such understanding. There are of course other christian traditions that have retained the ancient wisdom, and even in contemporary Christianity, there are various sects that have esoteric departments that uphold these teachings.

 

[Mr. Hair]

I think that the early Christian church was so intent on having an unambiguous monotheistic religious belief for its pagan followers that we inherit a confused concept of God that is monolithic and allows no distinction between the absolute Oneness of being and the hierarchy that it emanates.

Well, firstly, I think I recall that most of the early converts to Christianity were actually diaspora Jews and God-Fearers, and not pagans. The early Church certainly operated under the umbrella of Judaism for the first few decades of its existence.

However, I'd be more interested in knowing how you intend to explain away the early Greek concepts of the Trinity and (in particular) the distinction between the essence and energies of God.

Anyway back on topic I think your view of the early Christian church is too narrow.

I'd agree. For a long time there was simply no accepted and established position on many theological aspects, and sometimes the process of reaching them was quite... Convuluted. It's simply inaccurate to say that 'The Early Church had this concept of God'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nordicßearskin said

"Originally Posted by ben d ' I think that the early Christian church was so intent on having an unambiguous monotheistic religious belief for its pagan followers that we inherit a confused concept of God that is monolithic and allows no distinction between the absolute Oneness of being and the hierarchy that it emanates.'

Well, firstly, I think I recall that most of the early converts to Christianity were actually diaspora Jews and God-Fearers, and not pagans. The early Church certainly operated under the umbrella of Judaism for the first few decades of its existence."

Yes, I agree .
--------
Nordicßearskin said
"However, I'd be more interested in knowing how you intend to explain away the early Greek concepts of the Trinity and (in particular) the distinction between the essence and energies of God."

I do not want to get too far removed from the theme of my post but acknowledge that what I am writing is done with with a fairly broad brush, and a detailed discussion of the emanations (energies)of God is not intended here. All concepts of trinities,.. Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, early Greek or later Greek orthodox, are derived from an essential cosmic truth,... the One absolute eternal and infinite Being emanates a complementary pair of opposites. These emanations were initially understood as such and were given names to distinguish them from the Absolute, but in time these
emanations become to be seen as Gods in their own right instead of mere qualities of God absolute. We now live in such a time and if there is ever to be a serious attempt to understand the understanding of the various religious traditions, then it must
begin by having clarity as to what one means when they use the word 'God'!
-------
Nordicßearskin said
"Originally Posted by stephenw:..Anyway back on topic I think your view of the early Christian church is too narrow.
'I'd agree. For a long time there was simply no accepted and established position on many theological aspects, and sometimes the process of reaching them was quite... Convoluted. It's simply inaccurate to say that 'The Early Church had this concept of God'."

If you read my response to stephenw above, I acknowledged that point, and so let us move on to the present. I am suggesting that there are many Christians today that
understand God as the creator of the stars and planets and creatures, etc.. but do not understand that creation is an eternal activity, along with its complementary destruction aspect that is taking place within God absolute. God absolute does not create, nor does it destroy, but creation and destruction is eternally taking
place within it. To give the creator aspect a separate name to distinguish it
from the Oneness from which it emanates if understood properly is not pantheism but
Monotheism that reflects the hierarchical emanational structure of Cosmos.

 

[Orontes]

A God that is absolute, in that it is eternal (can't be regulated by any concepts of time) , infinite (can't be delimited by any space) and unknowable (can't be defined by any knowledge) is what I understand Monotheism to be.
Now God the creator as generally understood by Christians does not meet the criteria above due to fact that creation occurs within time and space. For that reason, some of the older religious traditions use a different name for the Absolute to make a distinction between the One and the differentiated aspects that exist within the oneness. For example in Hindu religion, Brahma is the creator god aspect and Shiva is the destroyer aspect, but Brahman is God absolute and contains the duals aspects.
I think that the early Christian church was so intent on having an unambiguous monotheistic religious belief for its pagan followers that we inherit a confused concept of God that is monolithic and allows no distinction between the absolute Oneness of being and the hierarchy that it emanates. As a result the creator God is understood to be one and the same as the Absolute, instead of being understood as an aspect thereof.

Hello,

A God that is atemporal, immutable, indivisible etc. has the advantage of a base coherence. However, such an Absolute has no relevance for a temporal being. The difference between this conceptualization and the anthropomorphic God of the Hebrew scriptures indicates the tension between the Levant and the Pelopennesus and is one of the reasons Tertullian posed the rhetorical question when Christianity was moving toward Hellenization: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

The issue with trying to suggest a Being that bridges both arenas is such a Being would be an absurdity i.e. God cannot both be atemporal and temporal at the same time and still claim rationality.

 

[logician]

No difference, neither exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi Orontes, thank you for your thoughtful post,
"A God that is atemporal, immutable, indivisible etc. has the advantage of a base coherence."

It is not logical to talk about God absolute having an advantage, or disadvantage for that matter since there is nothing else in existence. Everything that does exist exists within It.

"However, such an Absolute has no relevance for a temporal being."

Whilst it is true a temporal being may not perceive any relevance, nevertheless that temporal being still 'lives, moves, and has its being' within Absolute Being.

"The difference between this conceptualization and the anthropomorphic God of the Hebrew scriptures indicates the tension between the Levant and the Pelopennesus and is one of the reasons Tertullian posed the rhetorical question when Christianity was moving toward Hellenization: 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? ' "

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to by 'this conceptualization' but if you mean God absolute, then I ask you to try and understand my understanding of Monotheism. God absolute to my understanding is the Oneness, the Unity of all there is,...everything that exists exists within It,..there is no outside! There can be no conceptualization of God absolute, it can not be known by any knowledge, described by any words, or imagined by any mind.
That there is a hierarchy of energies, entities (gods if you like), creations etc., that exist within the Oneness is acknowledged, but it was not my intention to discuss the prevailing concepts of such emanations existing within God absolute here,..that never ending discussion is taking place on other threads ( and on the battlefields!).

"The issue with trying to suggest a Being that bridges both arenas is such a Being would be an absurdity i.e. God cannot both be atemporal and temporal at the same time and still claim rationality."

I agree with you on your observation but point out that that is what I have been trying to convey. If there are bridges, those bridges exist within God absolute (Being),,,,if there are arenas, the arenas exist within Being,...unambiguous Oneness,..Unity,..God absolute. All temporal beings exist within the atemporal,.. all finite things exist within the infinite,.. all sentience exists within omniscience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi Logician,

"No difference, neither exist."

Please explain how it is that you are able determine that there is no difference between two things that do not exist?

 

[Orontes]

Hi Orontes, thank you for your thoughtful post,

Cheers.

(me) "A God that is atemporal, immutable, indivisible etc. has the advantage of a base coherence."

It is not logical to talk about God absolute having an advantage, or disadvantage for that matter since there is nothing else in existence. Everything that does exist exists within It.

My comment addresses the basic schema where God is the product of the logic of perfection as found in Traditional Greek Thought. Part of the allure of a God that is atemporal, immutable, passionless, indivisible was/is the coherence of such a being.

Your reply sounds like you are defending a panentheistic approach. Is that correct? If that is correct, then my comment above and your position do not necessarily connect.

(me) "However, such an Absolute has no relevance for a temporal being."

Whilst it is true a temporal being may not perceive any relevance, nevertheless that temporal being still 'lives, moves, and has its being' within Absolute Being.

(me) "The issue with trying to suggest a Being that bridges both arenas is such a Being would be an absurdity i.e. God cannot both be atemporal and temporal at the same time and still claim rationality."

I agree with you on your observation but point out that that is what I have been trying to convey. If there are bridges, those bridges exist within God absolute (Being),,,,if there are arenas, the arenas exist within Being,...unambiguous Oneness,..Unity,..God absolute. All temporal beings exist within the atemporal,.. all finite things exist within the infinite,.. all sentience exists within omniscience.

My point was that an atemporal being and a temporal being are distinct and can have no point of connection. If God is atemporal then It would be irrelevant to a temporal being. Further, if God is both temporal and atemporal simultaneously, then God is an absurdity. Note: this problem is not overcome by asserting a panentheist positioning.

There can be no conceptualization of God absolute, it can not be known by any knowledge, described by any words, or imagined by any mind.

Question: if God Absolute (per your description): cannot be known by any knowledge, imagined etc. why should anyone believe it exists?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Orontes
My comment addresses the basic schema where God is the product of the logic of perfection as found in Traditional Greek Thought. Part of the allure of a God that is atemporal, immutable, passionless, indivisible was/is the coherence of such a being.

I understand God absolute to be eternal, it has no beginning, and no ending, and therefore is not the product of any creation. But certainly the powers (gods) of creation and/or destruction of the universe are a product of the perfection of God absolute. They along with all lessor cosmic powers/beings (gods, archangels, angels, man, etc.,) have their existence in the eternal Oneness. Everything that exists is composed of the nature of God absolute,...quite awesome and humbling really, at least for those with a sense for mystery.

============
Orontes
Your reply sounds like you are defending a pantheistic approach. Is that correct? If that is correct, then my comment above and your position do not necessarily connect.

My understanding of pantheism is that it considers that God and the universe are the same. My understanding is that God absolute is immanent in the universe but simultaneously transcendent. I am not defending anything but am trying to understand the understanding of my fellow man. Through such sharing of understanding, I hope to grow in wisdom. If someone were to understand the meaning of the word 'universe' in the same way as I understand God absolute, then it doesn't bother me if they use it in lieu of God absolute. On the the other hand if they are using it to mean that the universe associated with science is the same as God , then I would consider it a gross error of understanding on their part.

=============
Orontes
My point was that an atemporal being and a temporal being are distinct and can have no point of connection. If God is atemporal then It would be irrelevant to a temporal being. Further, if God is both temporal and atemporal simultaneously, then God is an absurdity. Note: this problem is not overcome by asserting a panentheist position.

There is only one atemporal Being,..God absolute,..all else is temporal. All temporal beings are perceived to be separate from God absolute through ignorance, but in truth the kingdom of God is within them. Therefore the distinction you refer to is one I agree with and needs to be stated, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that there is a also a connection in that all temporal beings 'live, move, and have their being' within atemporal God absolute. For me, that is what religious devotion is all about, giving thanks to the source of my being, ..a connection I'm sure you agree does exist.

=============
Orontes
Question: if God Absolute (per your description): cannot be known by any knowledge, imagined etc. why should anyone believe it exists?

Because we are created of the 'stuff'' of the nature of God absolute, and It reveals Itself to those who love the Truth beyond all other distractions, and who are prepared to sacrifice this temporal existence to find It. I am not suggesting that anyone should believe, a mere belief in God absolute implies an underlying duality, i.e. a temporal being who believes in atemporal Being,..this creates and perpetuates the illusion of separation. To be 'born of the spirit' requires the sacrifice of the temporal to its true nature,...atemporal God absolute,...the Father and I are One.
The Kingdom is within!

 

[Somkid]

I think it depends on what religion you are asking. Some Buddhists believe in god like beings but they are not creators of anything maybe to look at them like an alien race would best describe their nature.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi somkid,
Yes I agree that it does depend on what religion is responding to the question.
As I understand Ch'an Buddhism, meditation takes precedence over intellectual conceptual thinking,...so please feel free to express your understanding of the ultimate purpose and destiny of mankind on this thread in the 'language' of your religion.

 

[Troublemane]

Further, if God is both temporal and atemporal simultaneously, then God is an absurdity. Note: this problem is not overcome by asserting a panentheist positioning.

Not really, I think the problem comes from assuming a duality, that its possible to have temporality and atemporality, since both ideas are really illusory. Time is a mental construction, as Einstein and others have shown. We can only hope that science continues to progress in discovering what mystics have known for centuries.

If God is concomitant with all of existence, including reality we cannot sense/are aware of, then God is both transcendent and immanent. God is one with all space and time, and all things in it, so is temporal, but also transcends and embodies all things, not just in their actual reality but also in their potentiality--what they might become. And since this existence is intelligent and highly interactive,(even iterative to some degree), we might say that God is in all ways self unfolding and evolving--as we are not separate from God.

Seeing a duality there is what makes there seem a separateness in the first place.

 

[Troublemane]

]Because we are created of the 'stuff'' of the nature of God absolute, and It reveals Itself to those who love the Truth beyond all other distractions, and who are prepared to sacrifice this temporal existence to find It. I am not suggesting that anyone should believe, a mere belief in God absolute implies an underlying duality, i.e. a temporal being who believes in atemporal Being,..this creates and perpetuates the illusion of separation. To be 'born of the spirit' requires the sacrifice of the temporal to its true nature,...atemporal God absolute,...the Father and I are One.
The Kingdom is within!

Is it necessary to 'sacrifice' your temporal being to get an understanding of 'atemporality'? This is certainly in contradiction to many religious beliefs:--yes, the Kingdom of God dwells within, and the Kingdom of God is at hand, its here around us, you just have to open your eyes to see it. The Bodhisattva vow as well, is a desire to dwell within manifest reality in order to help others learn about unmanifest reality (i.e., what is, distinguished from potentiality,--not merely atemporality/ "nothingness")

What you are describing, I think, is the transition from dualism to monism, and the struggle with nihilism, attempting to do what Nietzsche did so well---pass from the 19th century's nihilistic view (which is very similar to the dualistic nihilism the gnostics wrestled with) of the cosmos to attain a transrational cosmology, one that embraces both the rational and the irrational equally.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

A God that is absolute, in that it is eternal (can't be regulated by any concepts of time) , infinite (can't be delimited by any space) and unknowable (can't be defined by any knowledge) is what I understand Monotheism to be.
Now God the creator as generally understood by Christians does not meet the criteria above due to fact that creation occurs within time and space. For that reason, some of the older religious traditions use a different name for the Absolute to make a distinction between the One and the differentiated aspects that exist within the oneness. For example in Hindu religion, Brahma is the creator god aspect and Shiva is the destroyer aspect, but Brahman is God absolute and contains the duals aspects.
I think that the early Christian church was so intent on having an unambiguous monotheistic religious belief for its pagan followers that we inherit a confused concept of God that is monolithic and allows no distinction between the absolute Oneness of being and the hierarchy that it emanates. As a result the creator God is understood to be one and the same as the Absolute, instead of being understood as an aspect thereof.

I 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). Otherwise, our views are quite similar: one Essence, multiple internal relationships.

On first thought, a concept of a monistic Absolute as ancestor to all things— even God— seems to afford the satisfaction of consistency and philosophic unification, but such an Absolute must be conceived as eternal (without beginning or end), immutable and dynamic. The concept of such a monistic Absolute is IMO invalidated by the actuality of universe diversity: if diversity exists at all (even in space-time), it must be intrinsic to the nature of reality itself. There is, then, only one consistent philosophic conclusion: there is one (hypothetical) Infinity-Absolute consisting of multiple coordinate and coeternal Absolutes with God the Father at the head.

Many theological difficulties are consequent to the dislocation of creatorship. While there is indeed one First Cause, there is a vast hierarchy of secondary causations. The vital distinction between first causes and second causes is that only first causes produce effects which are free from inheritance of any limiting factor derived from any antecedent causation. God's creations are perfect, but the effects of secondary causes invariably exhibit the limitations inherited from other and preceding causation.

 

[Orontes]

My understanding of pantheism is that it considers that God and the universe are the same. My understanding is that God absolute is immanent in the universe but simultaneously transcendent.

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

My point was that an atemporal being and a temporal being are distinct and can have no point of connection. If God is atemporal then It would be irrelevant to a temporal being. Further, if God is both temporal and atemporal simultaneously, then God is an absurdity. Note: this problem is not overcome by asserting a panentheist position.

There is only one atemporal Being,..God absolute,..all else is temporal. All temporal beings are perceived to be separate from God absolute through ignorance, but in truth the kingdom of God is within them. Therefore the distinction you refer to is one I agree with and needs to be stated, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that there is a also a connection in that all temporal beings 'live, move, and have their being' within atemporal God absolute. For me, that is what religious devotion is all about, giving thanks to the source of my being, ..a connection I'm sure you agree does exist.

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 adandon the view to hold to reason.

Question: if God Absolute (per your description): cannot be known by any knowledge, imagined etc. why should anyone believe it exists?

Because we are created of the 'stuff'' of the nature of God absolute, and It reveals Itself to those who love the Truth beyond all other distractions...

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.

 

[Orontes]

Further, if God is both temporal and atemporal simultaneously, then God is an absurdity. Note: this problem is not overcome by asserting a panentheist positioning.

Not really, I think the problem comes from assuming a duality, that its possible to have temporality and atemporality, since both ideas are really illusory.

Atemporality and temporality are mutually exclusive by defintion. If one asserts a thing is atemporal (-A) and another thing is temoral (A) then those two things are mutually exclusive. The thread author has asserted there are atemporal and temporal things. That is a dualism. If one asserts there is a thing that is both -A and A simultaneously, then that thing is an absurdity.

Note: If one asserts that both atemporality and temporality are an illusion, then nothing exists as existence must be either temporal or atemoral to be a meaningful i.e. coherent.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Atemporality and temporality are mutually exclusive by defintion.

Note: If one asserts that both atemporality and temporality are an illusion, then nothing exists as existence must be either temporal or atemoral to be a meaningful i.e. coherent.

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).

By definition, the Infinite includes the finite else it is not infinite.

Biblically (and I believe) we are made in God's image. The observer cannot be the thing observed. Ours are the eyes through which the Infinite sees itself in the only way it can: from within.

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

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Troublemane
"Is it necessary to 'sacrifice' your temporal being to get an understanding of 'atemporality'? This is certainly in contradiction to many religious beliefs:--yes, the Kingdom of God dwells within, and the Kingdom of God is at hand, its here around us, you just have to open your eyes to see it. The Bodhisattva vow as well, is a desire to dwell within manifest reality in order to help others learn about unmanifest reality (i.e., what is, distinguished from potentiality,--not merely atemporality/ "nothingness")
What you are describing, I think, is the transition from dualism to monism, and the struggle with nihilism, attempting to do what Nietzsche did so well---pass from the 19th century's nihilistic view (which is very similar to the dualistic nihilism the gnostics wrestled with) of the cosmos to attain a transrational cosmology, one that embraces both the rational and the irrational equally."

Perhaps, while I may not be doing it well, I am trying to describe the transition from dualism to monism through a spiritual enlightening process that involves correcting the errors on the self-conscious ego that sees separation where in fact there is fact none. For man to function as incarnate spirit, the design criteria of our mind to enable it deal with an external environment in which we must live, must be able to process perceptions in a dualistic mode,...i.e. discerning good from evil, threat and no-threat, etc.. However when it comes to the question of who and what we really are apart from being a temporary walking sausage, we must go within. To experience this meditative approach is to come face to face with our self, and the dualistic approach that serves us so well dealing with the external, now creates paradoxical confusion. So yes I think a 'sacrifice' is necessary for the 'peace that passeth understanding' to be realized, but only in the sense of ignorance being dissolved.