I have made the mistake of equating God and the Absolute in the past when I was under the misapprehension that all spiritual approaches said fundamentally the same thing and differences were largely down to expression. And that the mystics of all ages pointed to the same reality. I have also believed that the intellectual idea of the Absolute described something real. But I don't believe this anymore and, if truth be told, probably never really did, the confusion being more on a mental plane than a spiritual one.
What I mean is that God is not an abstraction but the most concrete in the sense of most real thing there is. The concept of the Absolute is the product of abstract speculation and is, in the striking words of Pascal, the god of the philosophers not of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Absolute is being absorbed into non-being. It is thought taken to its limits and then, unable to go any further, postulating a theoretical void or emptiness beyond itself. It makes no difference if you call this a plenum-void as something is effectively swallowed up in nothing. The Absolute is the result of a mode of cognition restricted to form trying to conceive of what lies beyond itself and coming up with something like dimensionless space, existence without being.
But God is not like that. The Absolute is existence as theory. God is existence as reality. He cannot be objectified as a thing. That is obviously true or he would be part of creation. He is not some thing. But he is not nothing either or even no-thing. He is the eternal Subject, the Great I AM, and note that in this statement the I comes before the AM. Person comes before being. There is no being without a Person to be. Abstract pure existence is a fantasy of the philosophers.
There may be no such thing as the absolute in the philosophical or even metaphysical sense but there is depth and there is mystery. Mystery is what exists beyond the limitations of the world as it is bound by space, time and form as normally conceived. It is the ground of freedom which is the essence of God and which he bestows on us in the form of our individuality. Mystery is also the source of creativity which is God expressing himself in love. Love, creativity, freedom, these are real things and the true essence of God. The Absolute is really just an idea.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteWe have to go beyond abstraction to immediate experience.
As long as we speak about God, we are in the world of abstraction - the world of thought, not experience.
Whether we call God the Absolute, or call him "Love", or call him "Good", or call him a "Person" - we are in the realm of abstraction, of thought, of idea, and not immediate experience. We are trying to trap him in nets of abstraction.
This insight applies to everything, really - the more we call anything good or bad, etc, the more we are lost in thought and not reality.
"That which can be spoken about is not the Tao".
In the end, what we need is what Keats called "negative capability" - of not describing or knowing - and this is what is most lacking in the modern world, which is positivist.
In Buddhist terminology, this has been described as Emptiness - going beyond the net of abstract thought towards what cannot be captured by abstract thought. We are warned to never make Emptiness into something positive - the perennial temptation - and see it as actual absence.
But many fund Buddhist terminology unhelpful, so there is no need to stick with it.
What is wanted is an encounter like Job had when God spoke to him from the whirlwind - a God so awesome and mysterious as to be beyond our abstract nets that we try and capture him in, like a fish.
We must become as children before God - the adult prides himself in his knowledge, on his ability to capture the world in abstract nets, in his ability to manipulate - but by doing so he loses sight of the great and see some. Everything becomes reduced into small pieces for the adult.
That is why white literally every spiritual tradition without exception says we must recover the fresh eyes of the child, before the world was captured in abstract nets, reduced into small pieces, and all its glory and wonder made manageable and tame for purposes of manipulation.
The adult is the symbol of the rationalist enlightenment - the world is cut up into small pieces, trapped in an abstract net, in order to control it. It is a vision born of fear - which begets the desire for power.
The child - who does not know, but wonders - is the symbol of every spiritual tradition. Not afraid, he does not seek to control.
That is why every classic spiritual tradition speaks of the negative way - of recovering what was lost, if becoming weaker, knowing less, controlling less.
Your greatest perfection lies in your weakness and imperfection, not your strength. Only then can you get in touch with God - when you are not reducing everything into bits and pieces in order to control, when you aren't trying to be strong and powerful, and can just rest in wonder and not knowing or controlling.
@William - Very good.
ReplyDeleteIt is all too common to regard mysticism as equivalent to the via negativa (which itself derives from Neo-Platonism, rather than Christianity); and even to regard communion with God as the same things union with the divine - which tends to lump all religions together at the mystical ('highest') level.
And I think that was probably the covert intent of such influential writers as Evelyn Underhill - a smuggling-in of the perennialist agenda. A century on, this has become the orthodoxy.
A probem with Christian mystics is that their usage of Love is so abstract as not to need another person. Unspecific love of 'everything' is a real thing in it way, but very different from love of specific 'persons' - and it seems to be only weakly motivating, judging by those who profess it.
(Plus they often display powerful dislikes, which doesn't fit with their professing taht all is one and ultimately good - in practice they only love *some* everythings, not others! For example, they often love sexual sins, but hate environmental pollution by toxic chemicals and Nazi death camps - at least, they don't publicly defend them!)
Jesus presumably had love for everyone but he surely loved his disciples more than those who did not follow him and even among the disciples there was 'the disciple Jesus loved' ie John. And even that phrase "had love' for which I use deliberately implies a different thing to loved. If the personal does not exist and exist at the most fundamental level we are left with a vague amorphous generalised uniformity without any real flavour. I believe the whole point of creation is to bring about flavour and taste which makes it a better thing than the pure consciousness state of apophatic mysticism. I'm not saying that doesn't exist but I don't think entry into it is the evolutionary goal. And, as I said in another post, I am sure there is an evolutionary goal. Otherwise creation is a pointless masquerade which it clearly is not.
ReplyDeleteAnd even that phrase "had love' for which I use deliberately implies a different thing to loved.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it has more to do with the level at which that disciple was able to spiritually understand and reciprocate with Jesus.
The phrase "the disciple that Jesus loved" was only used in the Gospels after the raising of Lazarus, who then in the view of Esoteric Christianity becomes Lazarus-John, the highest initiate of all the disciples and in that sense worthy of Jesus' love to a greater degree.
William,
ReplyDeleteI agree that God is not absolute in the sense that God is not an abstraction. God is personal with intellect and will. Nevertheless, God is absolute in the sense that He is one without a second, comparable only in an analogical sense, infinite and metaphysically ultimate.
"And it seems to be only weakly motivating, judging by those who profess it."
ReplyDeleteOf course! Motivation only has value within systems that think we have to do something or get somewhere.
Weak motivation is a feature not a bug.
"Plus they often display powerful dislikes, which doesn't fit with their professing taht all is one and ultimately good"
The logical outcome of thinking all is ultimately good is that our likes and dislikes are also fine - we don't have to change anything.
At most, you just don't take your likes and dislikes so seriously anymore. You become light hearted - you see the cosmic joke :)
As they say in Zen, at first mountains were mountains, after studying Zen mountains weren't mountains any more, after more study, mountains are mountains again.
And as T.S Eliot said - the end of all our travelling is to return to where we began.
Our dislikes and likes are fine - no need to change anything. Nothing is serious or important enough to need changing - its all good.
"than the pure consciousness state of apophatic mysticism"
Apophatic mysticism does not posit pure consciousness - it merely stats in the negative, in "negative capability", without saying anything about what "is".
The moment you try and describe it, as pure consciousness, as the Absolute, as a featureless bland something, you are making it into something positive and completely missing the point.
Resist the urge to make it into a positive :)
"Otherwise creation is a pointless masquerade which it clearly is not."
You say this as if it's a bad thing, but it can be seen as a great joy.
It's only "pointless" if you are one of those people who see fun as pointless and must constantly be working towards done goal.
What is the "point" of Heaven? Is Heaven pointless? After we have reached the goal, done what needed to be done, the highest state - the state of fulfillment - is pointless. It is not going anywhere. It is the point. It had no point beyond itself.
So too existence is the point - it is otherwise pointless.
I am concerned here with clearing up misconceptions about mysticism, not converting anyone - which is unnecessary and impossible.
But I am beginning to see that mischaracterizing mysticism may be a necessary defensive move on those who cannot achieve that vision, so my efforts here are futile and maybe harmful.
So I will stop. Good luck guys.
Beauty and ugliness are the same. Love and hate are the same. Pain and suffering have no meaning. Rape, murder, infanticide all part of the divine play of the universe. Unknown, your brand of mysticism is an evasion of spiritual responsibility. You are applying categories that are valid in the purely spiritual world to the material world where we have totally different challenges and real demands are made of us. You can hide from them by refusing to acknowledge them but they exist and eventually you will have to deal with them.
ReplyDeleteWhat if all those things are not ultimately serious or real? What if we are not serious?
ReplyDeleteResponsibilities are an ego trip - but where do all ego trips come from? Where does all this desire to see ourselves as important come from? Where does all desire to build up our egos by seeing our selves as having responsibilities and being in this vast drama between good and evil come from?
It comes from seeing our selves as inadequate. As separate. As needing to be more.
A different vision of reality leads to no longer needing to build up the ego.
But William - if someone is constitutionalally incapable of seeing the works as an illusion and a dream, and as separation not real, then I will agree that such a person quite simply has no choice but to try and build up his ego and individual self and feel himself to be small and inadequate.
It is cruel to tell such a person that he is already everything - he can't see it, and is afraid.
So the game you are playing of being in this great battle and your individual self being supremely important and having responsibilities and needing to build up your ego - that has its place and if it satisfies you that's what you should do.
But there are some people who are ready for a different vision, and I think it's good that they know that in all religions and all times and places, there have been great men and women who offered an alternative to the mainstream vision that life is real and serious.
And in our times when this vision is all but drowned, and everyone takes everything SO seriously - the distinguishing feature of the misery of modern times is to take things SO seriously - it is good to offer to those who wish it an alternative vision.
But for those who cannot see it, are not ready for it, and need to continue building up an ego and sense of self importance to supply a "lack" - no harm done.
You are applying categories that are valid in the purely spiritual world to the material world where we have totally different challenges and real demands are made of us.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, yes that cuts to the heart of the issue.
This is part of why Buddhism seems to be such a one-sided path. Half of what Unknown says may be correct on one level, but one is never sure of the spiritual/material context in which it was made. Do Buddhists even believe in a spiritual world, an afterlife, etc?
If not, then we must reduce the figure of "half" to a much smaller fraction. But it is the constant attack on the Ego, our greatest gift - that gives cause for the most concern. The Buddhism presented to us here stands in direct opposition to pretty much all that is right and good on the Christian path.
What is so often missed when Westerners adopt Eastern thought and practices is that in the culture to which these things are native an apprenticeship in moral discipline is required before any higher teachings are imparted. Buddhism treats life very seriously and most of its practices are designed to heighten one's mindfulness of the effects of one's thoughts and actions, not to dismiss those actions as ultimately meaningless. Some of the confusion on this score comes from a misunderstanding of the Sanskrit word "lila", which is usually translated as "play." Westerners take this to mean that God is playing with the world, as a kind of amusement. But "lila" means play in the sense of a drama, a grand enactment. We are actors - yes - but our actions have real consequences in terms of human suffering and human salvation. The person we are is an expression of moral character, which in turn is an expression of our understanding the nature of the world and its educative purpose. If suffering were not real, Buddha would not have spent his life teaching people how to stop its arising and maintenance. As far as the ego is concerned, misunderstanding of its nature and function is a huge topic: too much to be addressed in a comment. But the insubstantiality of the ego has to do with the fact that it does not stand alone, but depends upon so many causes and conditions: it has no self-existence, so that when we say "I" we are using shorthand for so many things that interact in mind and body and none of which stands alone. The difficulty I find in some of your columns, William, is the lack of a clear idea of what constitutes individuality or personality. Too often, it seems to me, straw men are being set up and attacked when people try to claim the high ground for their spiritual vision. It would be good if we would all define our terms as much as possible before making broad statements involving abstractions without a clear referent in experience. We all get carried away with rhetoric, I know, and when we depart from mere description of physical phenomena, we enter the realm of emotions and values where subjectivity comes to play a major role. I agree with Bruce Charlton on the importance of stating one's metaphysical assumptions. I think much confusion about Bruce's own ideas about Christianity could be avoided if he would put some a notice at the head of his columns that he rejects traditional Christianity and subscribes to Mormon theology, perhaps with a link to a concise list of Mormon positions, such as the rejection of the Trinity, ,the eternality of human beings, and God being an evolved man who retains a body of sorts and lives with his wife on a planet near the star Kolob. It's good to know where people are coming from when they represent themselves by a name ("Christian") which ordinarily stands for something quite different from the way they are using it.
ReplyDeleteMoonsphere - it does cut right to the heart of the matter.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the best way of putting it is - Buddhism says that we are already in the spiritual realm where everything is well and there is no more "point" to things, we have arrived, we never left it, this is it!
And then spiritual practice is geared towards realizing this.
Christianity - well, most but not all forms of it - says we are NOT there yet, and we have to work to get there.
It hinges on whether you think reality is real or not.
Although historic Christianity certainly did not think the Ego is our greatest gift, any one who does think that will not be attracted to Buddhism, or any kind of mysticism really.
But everything flows from our perceptions - are we separate brings with essences? Then we are fearful, anxious, and try and build our egos as a defense.
Are we not really separate but a part of everything? Then we can relax and enjoy life.
But our perceptions are not under our control.
I've had the experience of being in a beautiful setting and time just dropping away and feeling that everything is perfect as is and nothing needs to change.
Someone without this experience will have a very different metaphysics.
And neither is more "right" because both are being honest to their perceptions. So it's good there are different kinds of religion because people are different.
Its unavoidable that each thinks their religion or path best, but we can also cultivate appreciation that other paths also have some validity - although this means reducing the Ego somewhat, and the Ego developing paths seen always to insist that only their path is legit - because thats what Ego demands.
Hmmmm, lol so maybe it's not possible for there to be mutual appreciation because the Ego building paths are inherently aggressive towards other paths.
Thats why mysticism - which is the greatest challenge to the Ego building paths - always had to hide itself and live an underground life or face persecution. Even in Asia, where mysticism was most accepted, it had to be hidden and disguised somewhat.
Ego will not tolerate being told it isn't important.
Anyways, the mystical path arises in every country and clime and religion, do is a perennial possibility of the human spirit.
Perhaps Wittgenstein was the last proponent of the non-Ego mystical path of non-striving in the West.
But as the Western culture of striving produces greater and greater strain, I expect a revival of the mystical path soon.
It will never be mainstream - it cannot be - but it will have its place.
Is the Old Testament God, with a name and personality, real?
ReplyDelete'God' is an abstraction.
The Absolute is an abstraction.
A God that is only love is a projection of idealism. Another abstraction.
If the Old Testament is true then it is describing a Being, an Entity, and the conditions for Life and a Nation that cannot be desired away due to modern values.
@Unknown
ReplyDeleteWith Christianity it is a balancing act with the Ego.
We must strive to overcome its lower aspects and in the process it becomes the central organising principle through which we may purify the rest of the human being. One definition of a saint is one who has purified the astral body. Or in other words - "Christianised" the soul. This is achieved by the Ego exerting influence towards that goal. Its really what separates man from the animal which, lacking an individualised ego, simply does not have the faculty for unsentimental self-improvement.
Within the tradition of Esoteric Christianity, it is said that Jesus Christ not only purified his astral body but also his ether body and through resurrection - the physical body itself. The Christ Ego - the I AM - peformed this task and exists now as part of the redemptive power for all human egos. In the Christian text - "And a little child shall lead them" - that youngest and most tender aspect of the human being (the ego), is referred to.
An so, in the three years - this was accomplished. For wider humanity this goal will only be achieved at the very end of Earth Evolution.
Moonsphere -
ReplyDeleteThanks for explaining. It's a good vision.
But imagine if I told you that what you expect to happen at the end of an evolutionary process, is already the case. Has always been the case.
There is just something clouding your vision.
And what's more, any attempt to reach that Evolutionary end state just takes you further from it.
Now, you may disagree, you may not see it, but that's really not such a terrible vision, is it.
But I guess from the perspective of the serious people, it really is a dangerous vision. I guess I can see that.
Nevertheless, this vision has persisted throughout history, and mainstream society has always accommodated it in some way provided that people who had this vision paid some kind of lip service to mainstream values.
It amuses me to think how many forest dwelling sages and hermits and monastics had to wrap themselves in mumbo jumbo about "spiritual development" when in fact they were just goofing off, having seen through everything, but couldn't let on for fear of persecution :)
Today, however, it seems society has lost the ability to accommodate the mystic vision - one must either work for material development or work for spiritual development (what Trungpa Rinpoche called "spiritual materialism"). One must be grim and earnest whether one is a materialist or a religious person, one must never be satisfied and content with what is, and one must always be looking to the future.
Now this is fine as far as it goes, and I don't expect there ever to be mass interest in mysticism.
But I do think something is lost when this alternative mystic vision is completely banished, and that the existence of people who see the world this way is good.
Of course, from the mystic POV, there is nothing to complain about, and this is just a development stage the world is going through and all part of the plan, as it were.
So what am I complaining about :)
Faculty X, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the thrust of the post!
ReplyDeleteUnknown, we are both separate and not separate. This is the nature of oneness and difference both being functions of the universe. It also explains love. But I have to say you write long comments all saying exactly the same thing but never addressing any of the points made to counter your position except to dismiss them out of hand. But the fact of creation remains and can't be dismissed other than by what amounts to a trick of the mind which is what I believe you are guilty of. What you call mysticism is only one sort of mysticism. Most Christian mystics would not recognise their path in your words nor would many Hindu mystics who would say that spirituality without God lacks something important, indeed vital. You say "'I've had the experience of being in a beautiful setting and time just dropping away and feeling that everything is perfect as is and nothing needs to change." So have I. It is indeed wonderful but we cannot necessarily take personal experience as an infallible guide to truth. This experience is authentic but that does not mean we need make no further efforts on the spiritual path. If it did we would never needed to have been born in a material world. But here we are.
Edwin, I don't know anything about Mormonism and am not tempted to investigate. You say that "the difficulty I find in some of your columns, William, is the lack of a clear idea of what constitutes individuality or personality." Good point! I don't think I can define it other than to say that it is the authentic 'I' within us, bestowed by God at our creation which we are enjoined to grow and develop and then return to God to be united with him in full consciousness. It is not the ego which I would regard as the reaction of the spiritual individuality when it finds itself in the phenomenal world and identifies itself with its material expression. The Buddhists are right to reject the ego but wrong to reject that of which the ego is a projection in the 3 dimensional plane of being. But the authentic self is that in us which is the ground of our freedom, and freedom is the reason for everything in my view. To go back to the point of the post, God is freedom which in some sense stands above being, and he gives us freedom too which is the foundation of our individuality. There you are, the reality of freedom is what constitutes individuality. That's my best attempt at a definition!
William -
ReplyDelete"If it did we would never needed to have been born in a material world. But here we are."
Is it possible we didn't need to? The alternative to doing something out of need is doing it for fun.
Your baseline assumption seems to recognize on my need - if we are here, there must be a purpose.
But there is another way of looking at it.
When we finally get to Heaven, or when the Evolutionary Goal is reached, why did that need to happen? The state we are in then, what need is there of it?
It is it just fun?
In the beginning of genesis, it says God created the world and saw that it was good. It does not speak of need. It was just a good, a fun, thing to do.
Moreover, in traditional Christianity spiritual development was a regrettable necessity due to the Fall - all of creation was not just so that we could spiritually develop.
So there are many ways we can interepret the fact that we are here. That we were created for the purpose of spiritually developing our selves rather than just enjoying our selves (as suggested in the Garden of Eden story. Before the Fall man was just enjoying himself. That was the purpose of creation) is just one version and not the only logical one.
" But the fact of creation remains and can't be dismissed other than by what amounts to a trick of the mind which is what I believe you are guilty of."
In a way, yes. Except I would reverse that - and say that all of creation, as it appears to you, is a really a trick of your mind :)
That is the Buddhist position.
Edwin ,
ReplyDeleteYou perfectly articulated my own inchoate response.
It seems to me that many modern people of the West end up bastardizing and anesthetizing the philosophies and religions of Asia. Even Taoism is a teaching based on Truth, and shouldn't be understood as a case for relativism and nihilism.
@Unknown
ReplyDeleteEven the reputation of Buddhism itself, for which most of us hold a certain respect - has suffered under your advocacy on these pages.
In terms of spiritual damage that such a worldview can wreak, we can perhaps only find a parallel in Cultural Marxism.
And so one is left only with the dubious pleasure of determining the relative roles of Lucifer and Ahriman in the destruction of the sublime wisdom of the East and its replacement by the imposter that today we call "Western Buddhism".
I'm probably an idiot for getting further involved in this discussion which is not going anywhere but I feel that your pov, Unknown, though superficially attractive, is potentially spiritually destructive in that it facilitates the spread of evil by not admitting that evil has any reality. It also runs counter to a true spirituality for the modern world. This approach may have sufficed for forest sagea in antiquity but the time for those kind of people has passed. We really have moved on. The advent of Christ changed everything and meant that the self, instead of being an obstacle to spiritual realisation, became the means to greater spiritual realisation. This is where Western spirituality goes beyond Eastern and your approach is rooted in Eastern hence the past.
ReplyDeleteYou say "imagine if I told you that what you expect to happen at the end of an evolutionary process, is already the case. Has always been the case." Certainly, eternity always is there but it can only be known through time. Moreover, what you say is incorrect because God is creative and he creates to become more. Life is dynamic which is its great glory. Your approach is a recipe for spiritual stagnation if pursued beyond a certain point.
Please don't reply to this because you will simply repeat at length what you have said many times before. I don't mean to be rude in saying this and if you want to make a brief comment by all means do so. But I do want to counter what you say because it may confuse other readers who are not versed in its flaws.
Lol, I am reminded that the only reason Eckhardt escaped being hanged was because he died before they could get their hands on him :)
ReplyDeleteThe fact is what I am saying is extremely controversial and has always been - as I have said, Tibetan Dzogchen was considered a secret teaching one could only study after years of conventional "striving" practice, and also provoked controversy and persecution.
It is only in today's spiritual break down that all these secret teachings are being made widely public - the secret is being let out of the bag.
Anyways, once again I apologize for my controversial views and having upset anyone, and thank all here for a conversation I at least found stimulating and worthwhile.
P.S. - Moonsphere - As I understand it, CultMarx advocates aggressive change out of a view that what happens in the physical world is extremely important. This is rather the opposite of the view I have been advocating - acceptance of everything just as it is, out of the view that the plat of forms is like a dream and not serious.
Anyways, good day gentlemen.
"This is where Western spirituality goes beyond Eastern and your approach is rooted in Eastern hence the past."
ReplyDeleteIt might simply be that spirituality is a different thing to Eastern and Western man all together!
Unknown, seriously, it's not controversial and no one here is upset! It's a fairly common spiritual attitude which misses the heart of the matter by a narrow whisker but a narrow whisker at the gates of eternity is a wide miss. Read the criticisms of advaita Vedanta, which is more or less the position you espouse, by Kashmiri Saivists to see what your system, and believe it or not it is such, misses. Or simply meditate on these words of Jesus. "Greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for his friends". This brings out the difference between a doctrine that accepts self and one that denies it showing the clear superiority of the former.
ReplyDeleteThe writer Stratford Caldecott studied Dzogchen for several years and had a great deal of respect for it but eventually concluded that it served best as a preparation for Christianity.
William, you say two different things in your post: The Absolute is an abstraction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that.
You also say God's true essence is love, creativity, and freedom. Where do you get this notion?
If the Old Testament God is real then He is as He is.
You note the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - that God took an active role in the world, communicated directly, shaped nations, destroyed cities.
Do you think that God, with a personality and plan, is real?
All the talk about mysticism is interesting. I am a mystic. However it is more abstractions with value systems separate from the Old Testament, or talk about a personal internal state such as IN-lightenment.
The answer to the question of the existence of the Old Testament God changes everything.
If He is real then the rules are more clear, and our reality becomes relational.
If He is real then abstractions wither away.
If He is real then projections of modern idealism such as god is love become false.
That specific God is sometimes loving, sometimes wrathful, and works in his way that is noted in the Bible, which has a certain style... but is not reducible to god being freedom, love, or some other modern preferred notion or abstraction.
Is the position of your post the one true God of the Old Testament is real? Or is He replaced by what people want to believe?
Unknown ,
ReplyDeleteIf all is well , nothing needs to be done , and we are already in heaven ,then why did the Buddha teach the Eightfold Noble Path? I think you are misrepresenting What you are calling mysticism.The way dualism is transcended is not by pretending like it doesn't exist, but by embracing it fully. Reality is one and many - nondual.
I see what you mean, FX. Well I do believe the God of the OT was real but note I say was. God manifests himself to people in a way they can understand and relate to. There wouldn't be much point otherwise. But consciousness evolves. Jesus presented a higher understanding of God and love, creativity and freedom are inherent in that.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Jesus built on the law and the prophets so the OT God was deepened and expanded rather than shown to be a false god. The 10 commandments are not outdated but were given a deeper meaning by expanding the vision behind them. And for what it's worth I do think there is room for a wrathful God in in the new view of God. His love is not sentimentality and he is also the God of truth. But his wrath is not petulant anger but righteous and good like that of a chastising father.
The presentation of God is not complete, not by any means. Moreover, in addition to the transcendent Creator there is the God within which is not really brought out in the OT and not that much in the NT either. Both are important if we would (start to!) understand what God is. Neither should be neglected.
Well said, Chris.