Spinoza Pantheism Defined

Neither do Jehova's Witnesses, and that is the main reason why they are not considered to BE christian by the majority of the community. Not that I am comparing you to them, of course but just to illustrate that there are varying perceptions of Jesus even in what is self-proclaimed to be christian. Yes, there are an awful lot of terms bandied about. Sometimes I am quite sure that the great world religions are so similar at their cores, that if we just got past the terminology and the symbology, we would find such silly differences as 'when does the eternal start' 'how do you reach immortality' or 'what part of us goes on'. Questions which, obviously, have only an answer in faith, and therefore we can't flaut our own.When I say 'prophet' I think not of prophecy as in prediction. I think of a mere human who has been chosen as the mouth piece of God, and technically Jesus is more. He is both/and. I think of a prophet as a person who has revealed to us the nature of God, or of His plans. Some of the plans do have to do with the future, yes. But I did not mean to be insulting about the star. In a very real sense, a star could be a prophet or revealer of God's plan, even if only accidentally. When I think of a prophet it is with the idea that God must go into the speaker, so therefore I thought that a religion where God was in everyone in actual substance, would make us all prophets.So, you have said that the third type of knowledge is that which somehow links us to understanding the divine, perhaps through meditation? From this I gather that a prophet may receive knowledge if he properly applies his mind, and he may be distinguishable as slightly superior from those who have not.The reference you have cited is not in-depth about how to attain this knowledge, but I wish you would apply it to kuresu's thread. This part is ideal; This harks directly back to morality. In the thread 'why do right?' kuresu alleges that religious people do 'right' because God ordered them to, or because of fear of hell. He is working IMO with the 'inadequate ideas' and perceiving things without perceiving the causes that determine them. He repeatedly says "I don't know" when asked why he feels moral obligation. He imagines morality to be contingent on circumstance, or relative, rather than ordained by the forces that be. That is a common thought around EvC in general, but I do see morality as the underlying good that we can indequately perceive, and which is in all things. Our perceptions are relative, but the good is absolute. It is called compatibilism. Free-will esists WITH determinism. Things are set to be a certain way, but we can change them via free-will, and thus these changes are 'sin'. That God knew and knows what cahnges we will make is beside the point. He did not 'force' us. This is the premise for the searches for a genetic code which determines homosexuality. If it were found, it would get homosexuals off the 'hook' for choosing to violate what is 'meant to be'. Of course, there are means of discovering if it is anywhere else meant to be, such as in other animal species. The stance of the church now in regards to this is; if a person has a genetic code which causes him this tendency to veer from the path, he must be even more careful to stay on the path. It is rather less satisfactory to state that it is somehow a disorder, so the emphasis it seems is on making a case for it being the natural.Side note; I think I saw that pantheism holds God to be deterministic as well. I believe that for us christians, He is the only thing not bound by the rules, but I could be mistaken, as it would be impossible for Him to do anything which would oppose Himself. He is bound by His perfection, but not by any outside force, as we are bound by the outside force of God.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I do not picture God to be like anything. Most images of God were from times when pictures were vital for telling stories, but it was held by the Jewish people that you must not create an image of God or even speak His name. Pictures therefore merely represent a deity, as wrods represent His name, or the dollar represents currency in solid form. As humanity is thought to be the greatest creation, it follows to use a superb human as a reference. Obviously one could not draw the unobservable God. The only thing it is subject to is our views about it. Our inadequate understandings of what is meant to be gives morality a different flavor from person to person. Evil is nothing, to me. God is everything that was made and How it was made, evil is not absolute in itself, but is only a change in the absolute and pre-determined plan of God.
God allows evil to exist, because He gave us free-will. He tempered free-will with knowledge of good and evil. It does not follow that He must have created evil, or that evil even has any substance. Satan may, and he sort of gives personification to evil, by taking it as his mission to interfere in God's plan. For us who are subject to these forces, there is a dualism between God and Satan, but Satan is not tapping into any 'darkside'. He is for now the dark side that we perceive.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

If animals have no free-will, they can not change God's plan. If they have no knowledge of good and evil, they can not be accountable for evil.

Do I detect some *intent* with this seemingly wanton usage of capitals? I think you are up to one of those incredible and trade-marked analogies again.

Human further does not mean 'God'. If God exists, we can not prove 'deliberate *void* of conscience, or wanton *penchant* for destruction as part of His intent in creation. He can not be said to have created evil, but good. WE have created evil. Good is absolute to me, we just can not perfectly know its face.

I am not sure I see a spectrum. I see 'natural' behavior as a universal tv screen, for lack of better analogy, and 'evil' as a temporary obstruction of parts of the transmission. The spectrum is in our own minds, and the extent of the evil is detemined relative to our view of the screen, the size and duration of the obstruction. I may believe that there is an absolute transmission possible, and an absolute lack of transmission as well, but so far, since I have not seen that, I have no 'proof' outside of these beliefs. All I can do is say 'relative to what I HAVE SEEN, this action was worse, or better'.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

No, I don't think there is any true spectrum. There looks to be from a purely sensorial view of life, but in my theology, there is not.

It is something of this looking and striving for unity, such a necessary element of christian daily life, which innately leads to the average christian's distrust of pantheism. How strange, they feel, to think there is nothing to strive for! How strange to say God is already here!Ovbviously you have shown that there is something to strive for in pantheism. Something of a 'fallen' nature perhaps as well? Since we are in a sense called to be 'better' or more in touch with unity, than our purely physical senses can unite us, we are 'fallen' from this union in much the same way as christianity?

I am not entirely sure of what you are asking. I will again explain my perceptions of God, i.e., my theology, and can only hope that it will cover your query.God/Source is absolute Good. There is on earth no absolute knowledge of good. We perceive a spectrum of relative morals ranging from very good to very bad. On one end we see no absolute good because we have not yet known such. We do believe that absolutes exist, and we call these ideals. Ideals do not exist outside of our imagination.On the opposite end, we see no absolute evil. There is no absolute evil, as in, there is no Source of Evil waiting at the other end. Our perceptions of evil are relative to our understanding and view of Absolute Good.