Eternity and Perception of Time

[Detales]

Hi JD,

Thanks for your reply. I would quote further from BSK, but it is one of the two books that most often circulates out of my library. In this case it has not returned and I am on the verge of buying another copy(s) myself.

No author is completely or correctly understood, sometimes even by themselves, and certainly not by readers. I take solace along with Dyonisus of Corinth, who in 170CE could not complain about his own work being altered, as he was seeing it done with the Gosples themselves as well.

As for Aquinas, I wish that I had more of his work “under my belt,” but for certain reasons am more interested in why, after so much monumentally significant work, the author himself would label it “as straw.” I have my private theory about that, which is based on my own experience, my Mentor’s teachings, and a rather wide reading on topics touched on by BSK.

I’m sorry that at the moment I can’t offer you more, but will go back to the table of contents on line and see if I can bring anything back from the ethers. I don’t, as you can imagine, wish to misquote or misrepresent.

Blessings and Best,

BD

 

[itinerant1]

1. the alleged “Big Three” are that A) etrnity has duration,

I don’t know of any Catholic theologians or philosophers, who when speaking of God’s existence, confuse the idea of eternity with temporal duration.

There is one sense in which eternity can have duration. In Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God he assumes an eternal universe, one that has always existed but still it has been created. It is a sort of eternal creation posited hypothetically for the argument. Completely logical. But the eternal duration of the universe is said of creation and not the Creator.

B) that God is separate from Creation,

I’m not sure what difficulty you have with the idea of God being separate from His creation. The term “separate” can have different uses in this issue.

First, we can speak of God as being sort of an absentee landlord in relation to the universe. This views denies God’s providence and creativity activity of maintaining the universe in existence. Second, we can speak of God as separate from creation in that he is not identified with his creation. God and creatures are ontological distinct. Creatures were not created from the Divine Substance or any pre-existing matter. Creatures were created *ex nihilo. *Creatures or created things are finite and therefore ontological distinct and separate from the Creator, who is infinite.

An identification of the universe with God is pantheism. The pantheistic error destroys the true infinite and eternal nature of God.

C) Incarnation, Redemption, Passion Death, and Resurection are Real and actual esoteric events distinct from the exoteric history they have been made into and are obscured by. This misunderstanding is the root cause of the exoteric separation of the Abarhamic family of religions and of the separtoin of the Abrahamic religions from the Eastern Religions and Philosophies. It is also why the esoteric forms of each one of those diverse religions is in essential harmony.

As far as I think I understand what you are saying, I would have to maintain that your claim lacks historical evidence. You are giving an almost gnostic spin to the Christian understanding of the life of Christ; and you then object to that alleged understanding. Looks to me like a text book case of “Straw Man” fallacy.

1. While Gos is the ultimate Source of any action, there is not a God who is a Personal agent of any action in a subjet/object sense, unless we are talking aof a hypothetical being within the quale of manifestation other than Supreme Being.

Do you think that God did not act as a Personal Agent in the Incarnation of His Son?
You appear to make the “actual esoteric events distinct from the exoteric history” by denying God’s action in history. Therefore, you appear to be caught in beliefs that are in fundamental contradiction with one another.

 

[Detales]

"A) etrnity has duration,~I’m sure that theologians are likely not to confuse temporal duartion with eternity. My survey of ordinary pewsitters has them at odds with the thoeogians, as there appears to be a belief amongst them of “heaven” being something that involves activities (change) that last “forever.” That sense of “forever” is what I’m refering to here. Change implies time or duration.

For my part I agree with Aquinas’ postulation of an eternal universe. That would make time as an idea or principle of manifestation eternal, whereas the time itself is yet a matter of duration. Again, that would work as a confirmation of God inseperable from Creation as an infinite act, appearing to have duration only from our perspective as sensed “discreet” entities, which again is impossible.

God and His creatures are not ontologically distinct, only in sense perception. And yet “ex nihilo” applies, but not in the sense it is pewly understood. Ultimately “nothing” and Allness" are one, the “nothing” being only motrtal mind’s perception of Allness. the forms of creatures are finite, their substance not. Again, pantheism is god in matter, not God as including matter.

Well, at least you are intelligent enought o percieve that I am not purporting Gnosticism. As for history, you may wish to read more contextually about the times and authors and other players in the first four hundred years of the Church, as well as about the religious climate at the time, both exoteric and esoteric. And I’m not clear on how you see what I’m saying as a “straw man,” as I havent constructed anything to knock down. I’m only taking history in a different sense than you appear to be.

“…God did not act as a Personal Agent in the Incarnation of His Son” any more or less than in your appearance or mine. No “Person” of God is personal in the sense of agency as would be required in the christainist sense. such distinction of “Person” is soley/souly useful as an educational device if used in a particular way. Any “God” capable of such an act may exist, but is not the the ultimate God of Being. You may be speaking in this case of an entity I believe is named “Ishwara” in one of the Eastern philosophies. I’m not competent to comment on that. Such a Personal Agent as you describe defeats Diviity and is a mental construct or a lesser Being, though, if extant, clearly far higher than we in the scheme of things.

 

[itinerant1]

"A) etrnity has duration,~I’m sure that theologians are likely not to confuse temporal duartion with eternity. My survey of ordinary pewsitters has them at odds with the thoeogians, as there appears to be a belief amongst them of “heaven” being something that involves activities (change) that last “forever.” That sense of “forever” is what I’m refering to here. Change implies time or duration.

For my part I agree with Aquinas’ postulation of an eternal universe. That would make time as an idea or principle of manifestation eternal, whereas the time itself is yet a matter of duration. Again, that would work as a confirmation of God inseperable from Creation as an infinite act, appearing to have duration only from our perspective as sensed “discreet” entities, which again is impossible.

God and His creatures are not ontologically distinct, only in sense perception. And yet “ex nihilo” applies, but not in the sense it is pewly understood. Ultimately “nothing” and Allness" are one, the “nothing” being only motrtal mind’s perception of Allness. the forms of creatures are finite, their substance not. Again, pantheism is god in matter, not God as including matter.

Well, at least you are intelligent enought o percieve that I am not purporting Gnosticism. As for history, you may wish to read more contextually about the times and authors and other players in the first four hundred years of the Church, as well as about the religious climate at the time, both exoteric and esoteric. And I’m not clear on how you see what I’m saying as a “straw man,” as I havent constructed anything to knock down. I’m only taking history in a different sense than you appear to be.

“…God did not act as a Personal Agent in the Incarnation of His Son” any more or less than in your appearance or mine. No “Person” of God is personal in the sense of agency as would be required in the christainist sense. such distinction of “Person” is soley/souly useful as an educational device if used in a particular way. Any “God” capable of such an act may exist, but is not the the ultimate God of Being. You may be speaking in this case of an entity I believe is named “Ishwara” in one of the Eastern philosophies. I’m not competent to comment on that. Such a Personal Agent as you describe defeats Diviity and is a mental construct or a lesser Being, though, if extant, clearly far higher than we in the scheme of things.

I did not mean that you were gnostic but that you seemed to project gnostic tendencies into places in history where it did not exist. But perhaps that is just my misinterpretation.

Whatever the case may be, my conception of God follows traditional Catholic theology, especially as expounded in St. Augustine’s *De Trinitate, *and the Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. I maintain accordingly, that God is truly three distinct Persons in one nature. As you know, I am referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed Himself in the New Testament as a Trinity. The disciples were instructed to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The conception of God as a Trinity of has been expounded upon by the Church for over two millenia and should not be confused with any seeming similarities with Eastern philosophies.

I can only debate the logical nature of the Trinitarian doctrine, when time permits. All I can say for now is that I am just as or even more convinced of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity than I am convinced that 2 + 2 = 4.