Spinoza Pantheism Defined

This is not a preaching mission, but that is pretty close to how I have come to understand the Trinity. Add in the third element of actions flowing from the body and mind, and you have the Holy Spirit.

Yes, in the case of the Trinity, either-or = heresy.

Just like the majority of the stories in the Bible. They are both literal event (changing water to wine) and symbolic meaning (replacing new law for old).

Essentially, they are a trinity. I don't care if you use Freud's terms or more conventional terms. You have Id, Ego, and Super-Ego. Take away the 'me' there, because the body is not important here.You have the basic 'force' or animation which is subconscious. You have an ego, which is something like your self-awareness, and you also have a conscience. I will ask you which two you refer to? You mean that your ego and super-ego are distinct? In any case, that is the whole point of the trinity. All 3 are distinct, but they are not entities having seperate existances. Again, I am not sure what you mean by distinct entity. Yes, Jesus is distinct, but not a seperate entity. Jesus has no seperate existance. He says over and over, 'I and the Father are One'. He is One in Being with the Father, which means He has no seperate life force or existance. If He had seperate existance He must needs be created, and therefore not God. No, you misunderstand. As I have said, there is no seperate existance. You are I believe just imaging Jesus on earth and God in heaven, and Jesus with a body and God without, and thinking 'seperate'. You should instead be imagining God in heaven and God on earth, with a body, and without a body, and thinking 'equal'. If I am interpreting pantheism correctly, you will find that NOTHING has a seperate existance from God, while christianity will be more like 'we have seperate existance FROM God' but not such that we could exist without Him giving us this existance.And yes, the church took a long time to understand this, but in a way it was way ahead of its time. How many centuries of research into human psychology did it take before Freud could tentatively understand the mind of a mere human? Even today nothing is 'settled' or provable. You must not think of religion as a 'kit' for quick home assembly. You can't just sit down and bang out a plan like a new game of poker with new rules. "OK, everyone, ante up, this time let's play the three God draw, best hand gets to heaven'. Religions evolve, usually very slowly. Christianity had a sudden influx of new information to deal with, which is rare for a religion. 400 years is not too long considering.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, no again. He claims to be One with the Father, but never claims to BE the Father. It is not insanely hard to imagine God being in two places at once. Yes. But with God, they are. It gets tricky...Jesus had both a human mind and the mind of God. I prefer to think about it in this way; Jesus had a human mind, and He WAS the mind of God...in literal fleshly form. He is God. He is man. The Word became flesh...not went into flesh, but became. Distinct only means that you can tell them apart. Your feet have a distinct function. They have the same purpose, however, as the mind. The will of the mind and the will of your feet are one, but they act in distinct ways. True. For us, that is. No, no creation I am afraid. Not in the way that the church uses the word. God created us, from nothing. He 'birthed' Jesus from Himself, in the sense that Jesus could not have existed without Him. Remember, Jesus is the Word of God, the Idea, the Mind, the Wisdom, whatever it is, it is part of Him and could not exist without Him. Jesus is not a creation anymore than you have created your conscience. You can develope and change your conscience, but I don't think you could say you put it there.Now, the virgin birth was not when Jesus first existed, He is eternal. It is simply the moment when the Word of God became physical flesh. There is a 'moment' in time, but it does not mean He was created, He just changed His form SORT OF. I am not implying that He shape-shifted.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

That is beautiful and refreshing, brings back memories of simpler days and a peace I can relate to. Perhaps my 'programming' in Western concepts stops me just short of the sacred, but it stirs something inexplicable.I believe there is an immortality and eternity of truth/God. Some of the differences in world philosophies seem to be in whether or not we as humans are part of 'truth/God' and if so, is that something granted at birth, gained in part or in full during life, or attained in part or full in death?I have edited this a great deal since it rambled all over, but I will leave this question;What does Spinoza mean by 'more parts will become immortal'?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

double postEdited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Does every artist belong in retrospect to some 'movement' or another, or some 'school' or another? Are there any pioneers, or just revivalists?Anyway, from what I see, the American Trascendentalists were quite aware of Spinoza's ideas. They didn't agree with all of them, or even with each other. But that awareness definitely seems to have been influential, even if Spinoza wasn't directly credited. Good observation there!Here is what I understood; the Puritanical ideas of human depravity had become so absolute, and there was such a chasm in between Maker and Made, that it was thought to be foolish to even try to bridge that gap. Amos Bronson Alcott was an interesting character. He did an outlandish deed for his time; he taught children to understand the Bible without ever reading or memorizing anything. He taught them to use reason and their senses to reach knowledge of God. No big deal for us, eh? We like to have a happy harmony; trust in our human abilities, and awareness of our 'nothingness'. I believe trascendentalism is another term for christian pantheism. The transcendentalists put just a little of the divine back into men.If you remember that the Puritans were greatly influenced by Calvin, you will see that the Calvinistic Fundementalists here think along similar lines. They emphasize depravity and the deplorable condition of men. They emphasize Bible flash cards, repetition, back pocket inspirationals. Depravity has its place...as you say, putting the ephemeral into perspective and sowing to the eternal. But, it can too easily lead to despair and distrust of everything which comes not directly from the Bible and therefore, God. It doesn't trust 'man-made' religion, and fears human tendencies as 'pagan'.

I agree. I can't say I KNOW FOR SURE that pantheism is wrong. But, if you are a pantheist, you can say, 'my view allows for other views'. It says, if I am pantheist, I can find my own path, even if it leads away from and opposes pantheism. If you oppose pantheism, you are not pantheist. All is fine while you are a pantheist looking at the world, but if you ARE pantheist, you ARE NOT something else. It is exclusive.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.