Spinoza Pantheism Defined

Ravi Zacharias - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Christian philosopher and apologist.

​

Zacharias descended from a line of Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste).[citation needed] In one of his lectures, he explained that a Swiss-German priest spoke to one of his ancestors about Christianity, and thereafter that branch of the family was converted and the family name was changed from Nambudiri to Zacharias.

---

Interesting, but not surprising. Conversions happen all the time from any religion to any religion.Perhaps this is evidence that no religion is satisfactory to all people, eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Interesting post anglagard. Thanks. At it's most basic all Deism requires is that god be uninterested in interfering with what is going on: they could be observing, they could be completely subsumed into creation. This last is close to my belief\concept.I can't help you on your definition quest - I'm afraid you'll need others of similar mind. I can think of one from another forum (screen-name SwanModule) that I can try to contact if you are interested. Mathematician, philosopher and dylan fan.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The difference is relatively easy once you accept that the reality is what was created and not what is inside some box: when a belief contradicts reality then it is delusion. Doesn't matter if it is the Arian Brotherhood or your typical ill-considered YEC model for a young earth - there is evidence that these beliefs are not correct, invalid, untrue, and that is enough to distinguish them eh?I certainly go with anglagard on the evidence of the universe being the most compelling evidence of creation and that the study of it - as it is, unencumbered by beliefs - is a most worthy endeavor of an intellectual mind. Things like a belief in a young earth ARE only beliefs -- they are contradicted by facts. Look outside the box and you will find more treasures than you can ever find inside the box.Is there anything that MUST be true? I don't think so. Is there a number of things that CAN be true? Of course. Find those that are. But we don't know, we can't know (according to my beliefs) -- all we can do is proceed on faith that {it} does exist, and KNOW that it is faith.Thinking that you know something you don't IS madness.Thinking that something is true when the evidence says otherwise is madness.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well according to the topic approach we would look at the evidence to make that decision rather than look into a book and to opinions that people have. That you "tend to think" would mean to me that you have not studied the question in any real detail, but are willing to believe based on convenience to your personal opinions. I'd suggest going to a thread to discuss this, however I don't see any real willingness on your part to discuss such things. For instance: Has nothing to do with the discussion to date. You feel you need to introduce this to take the discussion off topic in a direction you are comfortable with instead of the one you are uncomfortable with. It's called a red herring logical fallacy. The logical fallacy of the appeal to authority (a favorite for fundamentalists). For who believes things does not matter to how valid the belief is. The evidence for the opinions is what makes them valid. For instance, Dr. Roger C. Wiens is also a christian, but what makes his argument for an old earth valid is the wealth of evidence and knowledge that he brings to the topic:Radiometric Dating
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens

quote:

---

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

---

According to the thread topic the Spinoza Pantheism approach is to look at the evidence and see where it leads -- for that evidence is the actual word of god made physical. And you just claimed to know what I know? Please save me from your false self-aggrandizing assertions. Prove that he was not talking to YOU. You can't, therefore the whole quote is useless in supporting your argument. So you believe. But it appears that you cannot do a thing without quoting text and a complete absence of evidence, data, substantiation, ... the touch of reality. Is this because you are dismissing the reality for a fantasy - increasingly so as you find it conflicts with your beliefs? It would appear so. The age of the earth is a case in point. It is easy to look at the evidence.Put the box down and look at the physical word. Or - reflecting on the topic - discuss why looking at the physical world is not a source of answers to what has been created: discuss the evidence, not fantasy about it.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Nope. You've had hints - and building blocks has some, comments on Deism show others. But, I don't feel it is my place to preach my belief, rather that everyone needs to find their own path.I do see a lot of resonance with anglagards 'spinozan pantheism' in general (and his resonance with taoism\buddism), but an essential difference is that I don't believe {god\essence} currently exists, while being the root cause and the end result of all (universe) existence.Is that clear?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Good vs evil or good at the other end of evil? isn't it a spectrum of behavior that we are discussing? from "saint" to "devil".What I see these as, is more a reflection of our intellectual belief in a capability to act outside of "natural" behavior, whether that belief is true or not. You say lions can't be evil, but we don't know how they see it.We have seen instances in primates and apes where moral behavior attributes can be assigned and appear to operate:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.htmlSo is this moral, or just normal behavior for a social animal? If it is normal, then by your definition for the lions it is not evil.Same for murder etc?Evil would have to be so much more -- as would the other extreme of good behavior (that has so few synonyms in our vocabulary ... interesting?).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think a better contrast would be tigers rather than lions - loners versus social animals, as what would be "moral" for different kinds of animals depends on the animals eh?Subjective for sure, but there is another side here, where we consider moral behavior to be {outside} natural behavior, and the problem is in defining the limits of natural behavior. The concept of evil is really behavior that is outside natural behavior.We see empathy in animals so empathy is natural, and thus behavior based on empathy alone is natural rather than moral.I also find it curious that we seem to have an ultimate bad in evil but not an ultimate good in ____ (blank word?). Does that not tell us that "morality" is more about controlling bad behavior than in rewarding good?Wouldn't that be a natural behavior for a social animal? Good only needs to be good enough to keep friends, but unrepentant evil gets ostracized.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That looks like a spectrum to me.

But is it your theology or your perceptions? Your theology flavors your view of life, but it is not the sole source and foundation, eh? Your view of life also influences your theology.Do you agree that actions can be classified as {good\bad\indifferent} depending on personal sensorial (ie subjective) views -- with a different view for each person? This is the only way to avoid a spectrum - by having a matrix that is tied to subjective viewpoints.Any reference to an absolute viewpoint would be a spectrum. And only with an absolute viewpoint could there be an absolute evil, and without an absolute there really is no evil ... just the appearance of it?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.