Whats in a name?

Well for instance take the differance between the Christian God and the Islamic God. The christian one is a trinitarian being and the Islamic one is entirely singular. The christian deity represents the inherant nature of good, and the Islamic deity has the power to define what morality is. That is one very breif and narrow example of the vast numbers of differances between just the monotheistic deitys. Sure they are all in one sense grasping for the supernatural, but even the vaguest sections- for instance trancendental and immanent deitys- represent a vast intelectual and conceptual divide. I chose to ignore the comment on the end saying 'other than theological distinctions' because theology is the study of the divine, so it is litreally impossible to talk about the divine without by definition engaging in theological discourse. Now do you have an actual argument and intend to elabortate on your very vague premise, or is that all?

No difference, they are all correct and all false.
One cannot 'define' the (undefinable) ineffable.

well i think the Abrahmaic faiths insist God is NOT nature/creation, but above and distinct from it

I do not intend to argue. What I intend to do here is discover the efficacy of each of these concepts. I also would like to bring better to light the fundamental differences and similarities of these concepts on a more practical plane, as opposed to theological sophistry which we have more than enough of. My goal here is 1. to remain objective about the experiential aspect of religious experience and 2. to gain a better understaning of the truth held within each of the spiritual approaches to existence. I want to do this because of the fact that I, though skeptical about the existence of a sentient deity, can not deny the effectiveness of the spiritual approach to existence. As such my aim is not to partake of more sophistic inibration which has led me to nothing but frustration and resentment. I hope, regardless of the existence of a deity in the traditional sense of the term. Which I might add by the sound of HIM, according to most religious people, dosen't seem care what we believe about him hence the use of the term omnibenevolent. I hope to discover why the spiritual apprroach is effective and which concept is most effective a doing what.

---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

When I say apart from theology, I mean to speak of the actual experience of religion itself. I want to know the personal aspect of religious experience apart from of the mass view of god, the theroys, the arguements, the sophistry made from petty distictintions of thoes who wan't to control and do not know, or even not know.
Thoes who create dissent, regardless of underlying inention, are bound by fear based faith to the fear based faith or thoes before them. Hell is a hellish place. I do not hold that these religious leaders are malevolent or above reproach. I do hold that fear breeds fear, and ignorance ignorance. I also hold that most people who value altruism do not intend to damn but to save the damned, whatever the implication of that term may be. I hold as well that many of thoes who claim faith and practice it well, whatever it may be, are not run by fear but by virtue. And it seems to me that the application of this virtue is very effective. I would like to find the source of this efficacy, the effects of practical application of belief systems, their applications and the results of their application. I would also like to find the differences in effect from practice to practice.

Amen

What operates on the theological plane carries over to the practical one- indeed seperating the two is meingless, as the one operates on all levels by definition. To give an example, take my earliar point about the fundamental importance of love in christianity as opposed to Islam where obediance to god is the main premise. Islam has a strict set of laws and rules by which muslims must live by. Christianity on the other hand, though it has laws and rules, has less and less stict ones, and more of them are established by later debate and agreements, rather than one original textual premise.