Spinoza Pantheism Defined

funny. i could the same of you and your inability to understand that "right and wrong" and "sin" are separate concepts.of course, you can correct people who are wrong. esp. if they are willing to learn. i find the trinity as illogical. i find it funnier that people try to make it logical. since when did religion have to be logical? there are three categories--rational, irrational, and non-rational. guess which religion is in?and i appreciate anastasia's attempt to explain this concept. its giving me an appreciation for how the religious mind works, and how the church works.and defiance isn't absolute.

Ok, anglagard, I am going to try to get on topic and specifically address your post and defintions. Some things are to me, unclear, but hopefully they will be uncovered. This is obviously distinct from christianity. It may sound similar, but though all things created are from God and reflect His mind, they are, in christianity, not really part of God anymore than maybe a painting. Nature has God written and almost breathing from it, but it is not part of any eternal 'essence'. Same as above, except erase 'constitutes the world' and replace 'created' the world. Would it be correct to say that everything is a part of God? And if so, are there different concentrates of God in different things? Can God be seperated into small pieces and still be totally the same, or are there different 'aspects' of God showing up in different places? Do the mountains show one thing, the trees another? If that is true, I would not understand how the sum of all visible and invisible things would not equal God, unless you say God does not rely on these things for existance. If he doesn't, I would think He must have created them, or they must be seperate from God, and not relying on Him for existance, but on some other force.Btw; I see 'HE' from habit. I know there is no 'he' or 'she'. Obviously, but just to be fair, christianity does not presume to say that God has looks or gender, it is just a traditional pictorial image. If you HAD to draw a picture of God in Spinoza's terms, what would it look like? I see the point, though, that having God look like a human would be a non sequitar, while in christianity having a seperate God who 'speaks' thru things in human terms would lend itself to a 'personal' image. See, I don't view God as a source of good amd evil. Good is when all things work together in harmony, evil is when they clash, and the only way that evil itself exists is because of free-will. I don't want to get all biblical about it; this is my understanding. If God just winds an eternally running clock, all things which he has made will run smoothly forever, because all things He made were good. Give men a tiny bit of freedom, and some things might not go as smoothly. Since we are not God, we have to learn the hard way what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Give us the intelligence to gain technological advance, and things can go even more hay-wire without the knowledge of right and wrong. So, as I see it, God gave us free-will, and then, conscience...a little nagging that says something doesn't feel right, even if we cover it or don't understand exactly WHAT is wrong. Therefore obeying your conscience in any religion = good. Free-will...brings evil. Knowledge of good and evil, helps temper it. This of course only works if we are SEPERATE from God in essence, or I would think that we would do good by default.This is as much as I will tackle for the moment. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

and; This is like saying I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and I am a Christian, but I don't agree with everything Jesus said. It would tell me at first glance that Spinoza is not a prophet but a theologian or theoreticist. He has attempted to explain God, Jesus has said He IS God. There's a paradox...in pantheism we are all part of God, and in christinaity, we are all trying to understand the seperate God. Yet, when it comes to prophets, Spinoza makes a valiant attempt to explain God, and Jesus claims to BE God.Of course, Spinoza has proof of existance, and we can't argue that years of tradition have put words into his mouth. but, I can argue that in pantheism, we are ALL prophets, as none of us is empowered by the 'substance' of an Impersonal Nature to 'understand' or proclaim Itself. In this light, we ARE God, in the way Jesus is, as we ALL can personally, perfectly, proclaim God's existance. Well, scratch the perfectly part. But we all would proclaim God if we were part of Him/It/She and yet in theism we do proclaim God indirectly as a creation or a painting.Sorry, I keep thinking about this and editing. It is really neither here nor there that you think Spinoza is a prophet. If that is your opinion only, then that can not detract from the over-all value of the philosophy. I am sure folks have not all agreed with Jesus, maybe doctored things up, or just become so programmed to understanding what He said. Add to that the fact of His divinity, and it would be hard to argue with Him.Still, I am curious; could a star be a prophet? If so, to whom? other stars, or people as well? Would it have to deviate from normal star behavior to send the message, and would that be like God interfering in a personal way?Also, do you think that only humans would have prophets, if all things are equal? Or do humans have a special role in the universe wherein prophecy is more relevent?Btw...christianity is deterministic as well.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Rob, you have shown me personally nothing about pantheism. You have supplied a ready-made answer that no one can understand. If you want to exalt yourself by thinking that we are just too 'corrupt' to understand it, you are a stupid prophet. A real prophet will speak to his disciples in terms they can understand. What did Jesus do? He said 'he who has ears, let him hear'. He also went out of His way on many occasions by explaining things in parables, repetitions, actions as well as words, to make sure His disciples understood. If they didn't, what the heck would the point be? 'Oh, well, write My ideas in a book, and someone will figure them out'. Bzzzz. His words struck home, so they were recorded.You are a futilistic prophet. You can accomplish NOTHING until someone understands you. I am sure Jesus wants you to give up and say 'no, they are satan's, it's no use'.If that is not true, then I advise you with all consideration, not to refuse an honest oppurtunity for dialogue. Archer has been much more than civil towards you...maybe even interested, honest, and willing to understand. If there is anything actually worth while in that noggin of yours, for God's sake, tell him.

Is your question logical? It's assertive equivilant would be to say that religion is not logical. That is positing a negative...It wasn't religion before the knowledge of good and evil, it was just reality. When man began to try to understand it without following every step of truth (God's leading), we stepped into the abyss.When you say religion is not logical, you are expressing a religious philosophy of your own that contradicts itself. Your saying your own statement is irrational... which is true, it is not logical. But that does not make all philosophy illogical. Only the illogical and contradictory ones.The whole lie... that faith is not rational, started with Emanuel Kant. The Bible says, be transformed by 'the renewing of your mind'. It does not say by 'the removal of your mind'.It is understandable Kuresu, but just like Calculus or higher math... it looks like nonsense until you first study the basics.The basics begin with the law of non-contradiction. And that is what my response was to Anglagard. It was an examle and argument as to why. The rest of this is off topic. If you can't understand calculus, then start with multiplication. But this making fun of the professor bit you so enjoy, is just sophomoric.The most basic part of all to understand is that you are a sinner. if you will not face that most basic fact and truth, then you have no truth in you to start the training. God will not reveal Himself until you tell Him your name.You can wrestle with Him like Jacob all through the night, but Jacob finally told Him the truth, 'My name is Jacob'.Jacob means 'duplicity'.Then... God said, 'Because you have told the truth, I will make a great nation out of you.'Start there if you really want to know. Otherwise, why waste both our times?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I have Anastasia.. I have! The problem is not intellectual, but moral. Remember what I told you about these people here. I warned you. But you do not understand yourself. You are worldly like them.Please listen to St. Paul.1 Corinthians 2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"-- 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"You must be born again... You must be born again. Just like God breathed into Adam the breath of life. Adam died in his sin and we are all born into sin. You must recieve the Holy Spirit as Jesus said 'the counsellor would come' and lead us into all truth.Your religion is dead! You are not a Jew.Romans 2:29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Dear kuresu, that is not entirely true. Right and wrong can be determined by laws. It may be 'wrong' according to law, to work on Wednesday. You won't have 'sin' unless your conscience tells you working on Wednesday will hurt someone, or that breaking a law is a sin. Sinning is simply the concept of not following your conscience. Not everyone believes in 'sin' per se, but at the very least, if you do something and you hate yourself for it, you have 'sinned' against yourself. Our laws currently reflect what MOST people consider would affect their conscience.I once asked a priest the difference between a sin, and a law. He put me on the right path by telling me that laws are supposed to be made for the good of people. There is USUALLY no distinction between a sin and a law. As you have seen, in the case of equal rights for homosexuals, there IS a difference; it would be a great 'sin' to your conscience to treat a person badly, regardless of whether what they do bothers you. If you only look in the Bible, you will find a bunch of ideas that don't make sense. The Trinity is a logical way of 'fixing' that. If you see a dragon scale, half-eaten triangles made of different materials, and a bottle of hair-spray with paw prints, would it be logical to assume that dragons eat only triangle shaped objects sprayed with hairspray?You have a religious mind, everyone does. If you ever can explain to me what happens after death, I will consider the idea that you have no religion.

I can't even believe your saying this...What did Jesus say about those who could not hear????John 8:38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father." 39 "Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!The righteous cannot hear Anastasia. They are blind and deaf!Matthew 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."Are you rich or poor Anastasia? Hot or cold?Revelation 3:14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Their are a lot of spirited people here Anastasia... If they want to save their lives, they must be willing to give up all of it, and be transformed by Christ living in them.That is what the bible says... And that is what a true prophet would say.

did you not see the third option? you know, nonrational. in other words, not rational or irrational. or better put, its a place created just for religion so it can have real ground. otherwise, you would have to declare it irrational. the hell? my question is a statement/question. this makes even less sense. what's wrong with positing a negative? we say such things all the time. Bush is not a good president, Clinton does not have a good moral compass, the Iraq war is not a success. your point by saying the opposite is positing a negative?
the the equivalent, opposite, would not be "illogical", since there are three, three branches. irr/non/rational. since I don't have two, you can't say the opposite is going to be "illogical". the third choice is still valid. umm . . .the only way I could make a religious philosophy is if I had one. Since I don't follow a religion, i don't have a religious philosophy. also, my own statement is not necessarily irrational. there is nothing irrational with the question "since when . . .be logical?".you are seeing shadows where there is light. evil where there is good. ignorance where there is knowledge. is it your way to subvert and twist everything?next time, try to actually make a point. my point here? your post was pointless.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Absolutely NOTHING in your message has anything to do with the topic.NOTHING.It is all irrelevant, inane and in no way related to the topic.In case you have forgotten, the topic is "Spinoza Pantheism Defined" not Rob's Jabberwocky.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Rob, nevermind the Bible. I am sorry I brought that up. This is purely a human attempt to advise you to speak in the terms your listeners will understand. It is what Archer told you in another thread; you must learn to reach each person and relate to them as an individual.

I DO believe I was born into sin. I will not argue the idea of original sin, and I am glad that you don't either, for now you understand a simple meaning of infant baptism. You said it yourself, You MUST be born again. I am forced to admit, by your judgement of not only myself, but other christians who happen to have different doctrines than YOU have, that you were born again in baptism as an infant, and have subsequently cast this off for prefernce of baptism elsewhere. You need only be baptized once into Christ. I can not imagine what you were baptized into the second time, and it must have been a ritual that made you 'feel good' as an adult.If my religion is dead, I again invite you to show that yours is not by refraining from judgement on others. I do not pretend to perfection, but I have noticed the uncanny ability you have to shift EVERY topic to a discussion of yourself or the people in the debate.

Thank you.I will address your questions soon. At the moment am a bit busy.

Rob, please feel free to actually address the OP. In the meantime, I want you to know that I did not create this topic in order to provide you with an avenue for your personal vendettas or to read the Bible in bits and pieces according to your whim.Edited by anglagard, : gramer

You are not a Prophet. You are being stubborn and not getting along with others in this thread. I am issuing a verbal warning. Lets keep our discussions Prophet able! Forum Guidelines