Spinoza Pantheism Defined

oh, you mean that thing that these religious scholars debate and decide upon, so they can justify bigotry and contradictions?face it, the trinity is contradictory. He's the Father, the Son, and the dead dude all at the same time? And you want to tell me that that is intellectually harmonious? com'on. My Dad is not me, and I am not him. Really simple logic. To declare that I am my dad and he is me is to be irrational. illogical.Jesus being both human and divine is contradictory. as they say, you can't have it both ways. you try to, you lose it.religion depends on contradictions.(oh, and just because you don't find other answers to morality convincing does not make them wrong. ever read a map? there are many ways, sometimes infinite ways to get from A to B.)

---

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.

correct me if I'm wrong.trinity=god the father, god the son (who actually existed separate from god the father), and god the holy spirit.ego and superid and me are not the trinity. I don't know what modern psychology has to say about this concept of freud's. however, those are two distinct entities from me. Wheras in the case of the trinity, the son was definetly a distinct entity (and still is, right?), and I've no clue about the ghost. It took the RCC about 400 years to settle the debate. And they only settled it within their own church. You still had many groups who did not buy the concept, and for good reason. Anyway you look at it, an entity that is actually two (or three) separate entities that have existed separately from the parent unit is contradictory.this is why religion requires so much mind-bending. but then, you've been doing it so long that you see it as perfect logic. when it isn't it.oh, and I thought you were leaving us to "reap what we sow"? back so soon?

methinks the problem might be where we're coming from. you have to remember, i don't buy into miracles.to me, it is physically impossible to occupy two or more bodies at one time. And jesus claims to be himself and the father at the same time!?that would be like saying my mind and my father's mind are the same thing. they aren't! we might think in similar terms, have common experiences, agree on the same things, but that does not mean that I am he and he is me. i reread what I wrote. Whatever point I was trying to make is lost in that confusion. If anything, I probably meant to say that id and super-ego are part of me. sorry about that. see, that's interesting to me. jesus was definately on this earth, away from god, his father. he was defintely physically separated. we know that he and god talked. so what? my father and I do too.either jesus is god, or he isn't. he can't be both, logically. (and i realize there's this whole thing going on with both-and, but it doesn't seem to have to do with formal logic, to my best understanding). distinct is separate. otherwise, how can you tell them apart? red and orange are distinct from each other. but there's a point where you can't tell where one begins and the other ends. on either side, though, they are separate colors, distinct colors. they are separate, distinct entities (i use the word mostly as identification, if that makes any sense).now then, sons aren't their fathers. fathers aren't their sons. they are separate and distinct entities. then what was the whole point of the virgin birth? I thought jesus was created? and, there's no mention of god being a trinity until after jesus comes. he's the only prophet I know of to actually claim being God. So in a sense, God was created if he and jesus are one.

---

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.

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.

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.

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 9.0do not discuss mod actions in this thread. it ain't the topic.

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