• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Panentheism comes in different forms. One form holds that the the material universe is the body of God and inseparable from God, like the life of a flower that transcends the minerals that compose it, and God is continously evolving along with the body. Another form does not see this interdependence and instead holds that the universe is composed of a differentiated aspect or substance of the One God.

I'm wierd. I hold both opinions.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Again, this is another word (atemporal) that is not in any dictionary I have been able to check and assumed you were using it as being synonymous with 'eternal'.


Ahh, I see. Dictionaries are rarely the best source for finding the meaning of concepts, particularly terms deeply rooted in the larger intellectual tradition. Atemporal is typically synonymous with eternal, but eternal traditionally doesn't have the meaning you may have thought. I'll explain. The theoretical/theological pedigree for both atemporal and eternal is tied to immutability. Immutable means changeless. Immutability has been considered primary for both grounding truth claims and for delineating the essential characteristics for any perfection since Parmenides and Plato. This is because what is perfect is complete and thus cannot change or be subject to any causative that would effect a change. Now, temporal is the adjectival referent for time. Time entails sequence and change as demonstrated by any time marker T and the movement of time through an attending T1,T2 T3 etc. Each instance T1, T2, T3 has its own beginning and end. This is why concepts like past, present and future are meaningful. Atemporality, per the prefix, is timelessness and thus precludes sequence. Eternal indicates constancy or duration extended independent of time. Thus, atemporality and eternity are often seen as synonymous and why the immutable is necessarily atemporal and eternal. This is how the terms are typically used with the Western Intellectual Tradition.


No, so long as an entity is using their self reference "I" (ego) to attempt to know the Absolute, no union can take place, because such an attempt implies a present understanding that they are not all knowing. Nothing that imagines itself separate from the Absolute can ever enter into it because the Absolute is already whole and all knowing,...it's already complete!
If I may put it this way, the Absolute (all knowing) already knows the knowing of the disciple, but the knowing of the disciple does not include all knowing. So long as the disciple imagines that by self effort it can know all knowing it can never enter into union with the Absolute.

No, it is not my view, the self knowing is not erased or extinguished, but is transformed from the self reference perspective form of knowing to a non-local or spiritual mode. In this elevated state, a physical body is no longer required,..being born of the spirit.

So, is your stance then that the goal is the subject coming to realize they are part of the Absolute and that realization is the knowing?
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Is coffee subsumed by the cup that contains it? Not saying that's the relationship he's referring to, but a good example of how something contained is not inherently subsumed.


No. Coffee and any cup are both ontically and logically distinct.

And if "eternal" is taken not as "endless" time, as would subsume it to the concept of time, but as "timeless", then it is atemporal.

Eternity is traditionally taken as atemporal.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Panentheism comes in different forms. One form holds that the the material universe is the body of God and inseparable from God, like the life of a flower that transcends the minerals that compose it, and God is continuously evolving along with the body. Another form does not see this interdependence and instead holds that the universe is composed of a differentiated aspect or substance of the One God.

I'm weird. I hold both opinions.

Yes fellow panethiest, but in my opinion this... "and God is continuously evolving along with the body" is somewhat ambiguous. It is not God absolute that undergoes evolution and involution but the creation within God absolute.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Ahh, I see. Dictionaries are rarely the best source for finding the meaning of concepts, particularly terms deeply rooted in the larger intellectual tradition. Atemporal is typically synonymous with eternal, but eternal traditionally doesn't have the meaning you may have thought. I'll explain. The theoretical/theological pedigree for both atemporal and eternal is tied to immutability. Immutable means changeless. Immutability has been considered primary for both grounding truth claims and for delineating the essential characteristics for any perfection since Parmenides and Plato. This is because what is perfect is complete and thus cannot change or be subject to any causative that would effect a change. Now, temporal is the adjectival referent for time. Time entails sequence and change as demonstrated by any time marker T and the movement of time through an attending T1,T2 T3 etc. Each instance T1, T2, T3 has its own beginning and end. This is why concepts like past, present and future are meaningful. Atemporality, per the prefix, is timelessness and thus precludes sequence. Eternal indicates constancy or duration extended independent of time. Thus, atemporality and eternity are often seen as synonymous and why the immutable is necessarily atemporal and eternal. This is how the terms are typically used with the Western Intellectual Tradition.

Well thank you for that Orontes, I fully agree with your belated but excellent and very well articulated explanation.
Regarding dictionaries, you didn't suggest an alternative as to the best source of finding the meanings of words,...maybe I don't need one if you are on call to help out? :)
So, is your stance then that the goal is the subject coming to realize they are part of the Absolute and that realization is the knowing?

Yes, I would say that is a succinct way of expressing it,..I'm impressed. Is it also your understanding?

Art is for a long time,
Life is for a short time,
So leave your mark,
It's your art of life.
anon.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
I see. I'm a rationalist.
hehe. No. I wouldn't insult you that way. As a rule, rationalists are a bit ditsy; you're not. I only mean that the conception and the experience are not the same.

What if time is the movement between the birth of an idea and its fulfillment? This being the case, "atemporality," like I said earlier, is time-transcending, not the absence of time any more than the life of a flower is absent of matter.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
See if I have this clear,.. atemporal is the same as timelessness, whereas eternity is the same as endless duration.
Therefore could eternity be understood as an abstraction from the atemporal? By then delimiting eternity/endless duration to a period of specific duration, it is now further divisible into discrete time period/instants.
Atemporal/Timelessness > Eternity/Endless duration > Temporal/Time
Is this not a similar to infinity and finiteness. Infinity is not-finite, and therefore is theoretically and logically immeasurable. But by abstracting from infinity the concept of never ending space, and then circumscribing an area within this never ending space, it is now further divisible into discrete finite 3D spacial components.
Infinity > Never ending space > Finite space

P.S. Rolling_Stone, that 3-12-2006 10:46 AM post was great!
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Well thank you for that Orontes, I fully agree with your belated but excellent and very well articulated explanation.
Regarding dictionaries, you didn't suggest an alternative as to the best source of finding the meanings of words,...maybe I don't need one if you are on call to help out? :)


Cheers!

There are a few philosophical dictionaries out and about, the problem is theoretical terms are often the product of a given theory. For example, 'spirit' for Plotinus is a different creature than 'spirit' is for Hegel and again different from Derrida. What I explained on atemporality and eternity vis-a-vis immutability is based on Late Hellenistic Thought: such was the intellectual oeuvre that Primitive Christianity bumped up against and what I thought you were about when I first read your thread..



Yes, I would say that is a succinct way of expressing it,..I'm impressed. Is it also your understanding?

As a Mormon, I believe knowledge is essential to any higher order of being, but knowledge alone is not sufficient to attaining such a state. I would place the core operative in the moral arena. Further, I would argue that the good is the very gateway for attaining the highest state of knowing. To reference St. John: "light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
hehe. No. I wouldn't insult you that way. As a rule, rationalists are a bit ditsy; you're not. I only mean that the conception and the experience are not the same.

I certainly have no argument on there being a difference between a conception and experience.

What if time is the movement between the birth of an idea and its fulfillment? This being the case, "atemporality," like I said earlier, is time-transcending, not the absence of time any more than the life of a flower is absent of matter.

I don't see how noting movement as an aspect of time thereby leads to an atemporality that is time-transcending but not an absence of time. I'm not even sure what the last clause could mean. Transcend means to move beyond or surmount. If it is a suffix for time (as in time-transcending) then time is moved beyond, surmounted i.e. no longer applies.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
See if I have this clear,.. atemporal is the same as timelessness, whereas eternity is the same as endless duration.
Therefore could eternity be understood as an abstraction from the atemporal? By then delimiting eternity/endless duration to a period of specific duration, it is now further divisible into discrete time period/instants.

Doesn't this: "By then delimiting eternity/endless duration to a period of specific duration..." sound like a contradiction to you? If X is defined as endless duration and one then applies the notion of a specific duration then either there is a contradiction or one is no longer discussing the same X.

If one wants to conceive of an eternity that allows for time there must be an element that endures throughout any change. This enduring element would constitute the eternal.
 
Top