|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 856 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spinoza Pantheism Defined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
You are not a Prophet. 2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Luke 11:47 "Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. Luke 11:48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Why does the word of God, so enrage you Phat? Why are my words not clear?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
More off topic nonsense.
The Topic is "Spinoza Pantheism Defined". Since it is obvious you cannot comprehend the topic of a thread, it is equally obvious that you are unable to read a Bible with comprehension. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
complaints about moderation are to be taken to the appropriate thread,
http://EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0 -->EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0 do not discuss mod actions in this thread. it ain't the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBuzsaw Inactive Member |
Rob:
1. I have to agree with Anglagard, AdminPhat and Jar that you're derailing this thread in a preachy off topic manner. There's a place to share the gospel if that's the topic. It's not here. 2. When citing a long link, in most cases, best to either put up the link or the link along with a relatively brief segment pertaining to the link. abe: Do not respond to this message in this thread. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
anglagard: [Spinoza] held God is worshiped best by using one’s intelligence to understand God, which is basically equivalent to understanding nature. Therefore, of all religions, Spinoza Pantheism holds science in the greatest respect because the act of doing science is holy. To put it simply God is best revealed through the study of the works of God (nature) rather than the words of men (Bible, Quran, etc.). quote: Spinoza also holds that there is no personal immortality but rather only the impersonal immortality of the truth. The more truth on holds, the more knowledge of nature, the more parts of that person are immortal. quote: Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBuzsaw Inactive Member |
Kuresu writes: do not discuss mod actions in this thread. it ain't the topic. Thanks, Kuresu. I forgot that item in my admin message. I was typing as you posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Maybe the common idea is that you have the ephemeral and the eternal. One prepares for immortality by keeping the ephemeral in perspective and sowing to the eternal.
How 'personal' is that? Good question. __ Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 856 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Yes
IMO, the Tao represents the beautiful poetry, while Spinoza represents the cold logic, of the same truth. To me, the three most beautiful works on religion I have read are the Tao, the Bhagavad Gita, and the New Testament. Each speaks eternal truths to an identical need but different culture. It is the exclusionary nature of some Christians (among other religions) and some denominations, sects, or cults which by their very actions and statements alone disprove any claim to love or knowledge of God. Edited by anglagard, : clean up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
anglagard: IMO, the Tao represents the beautiful poetry, while Spinoza represents the cold logic, of the same truth. Spinoza definitely comes at it as a logician, yes. It's telling that Lao Tzu strikes our ears as poetry, though. For its day it isn't. The sentences are ruthlessly concise. It's a philosophical treatise. That seems to be the way it goes with the genre. Images from earlier times, especially in pre-scientific texts, strike modern readers as more 'artistic' than the images that stand closer to us in time. The concepts of one generation become the metaphors of the next. As concepts are metaphors, ultimately, I guess the shift is built in. (Will today's talk of black holes and strange attractors fall on the ears of future generations as poetic? Will people read Hawking's prose and say 'Wow. Scientific language was so much more artistic in those days'?) I'm noticing parallels between Spinoza's thought and the ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson as well. (Here's another writer who didn't think he was being poetic, either. The noble, rolling sentences in his essays are looking more and more like period art as time passes.) How much is kown about the influence of Spinoza's thought on the American Transcendentalists? __ Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
double post
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: How much is kown about the influence of Spinoza's thought on the American Transcendentalists? 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'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
why does that sound like Rob?
as to your question, I argue that there are pioneers. we just put them all into a common movement. HG Wells could be called a pioneer of the sci-fi genre. it didn't exist, really, until he and a few others (like Verne) started writing. Locke was the pioneer of British Empiricism (not Imperialism).Rousseau brought the idea of collective good and general will to France--ideas generally foreign to the West. Edited by AdminPhat, : helping kuresu with spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"What was your ancestry?" "Orthodox Hindu, from the highest Caste of the Hindu priesthood. We were 'Nambuderies' (note: I have no Idea how that is properly spelled) in southern India" Ravi Zacharias - Wikipedia
quote: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Interesting post anglagard. Thanks.
This definition does not mean that everyone is God, or that God is simply the sum of all observable parts of the universe. It also is not equivalent to Deism, which as best I understand implies a God that is separate from creation and which initially creates the universe and then does not personally interfere with its workings. 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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024