Not sure if this is the right forum, but--maybe we can talk about Spinoza and his concept of God for a while

[metis]

Now metis, here's my mind. A killer might have compassion for those he killed, right? But that might not stop him beforehand from killing his enemy, or what is said to be his enemy by other forces considered superior. OK, don't want to get into a big argument about this now, metis, so once again I bid you good day and I look forward to the fulfillment of God's promises as outlined in the Bible, which I hope you do, too. Take care and thank you for your comments. May God bless you.

So, you think that Jesus was the only one who taught compassion for all? Sorry, but you are so very wrong.

And btw, Jesus did teach that those who did not accept him would deserve hell, and that's not "compassion for all".

 

[Balthazzar]

If Spinoza used mathematics as a source for his view, I'd say he'd be like my former friend who was so wayyyy outttt there that he had ideas so extreme and esoteric his mind had to be in outer space. Although not a mathematician. Now while I doubt Spinoza took mind-bending drugs, my friend became addicted to heroin and eventually died of an overdose, so the story goes. But he FOUNDED a crazy type religion (I can't think of a better word). I doubt Einstein took drugs, of the mind-altering type, but I don't know.
Mind-bending
Light-bending
Time=bending...lol ok enough for now. I think therefore I think some people are off the course.

The reason I applied mathematics to illustrate the thought is due to its infinite application. Assuming anything is infinite, including God or the universe, a vehicle able to illustrate the concept would be useful. Starting from the beginning at 0 = God. From Spinoza's pov, everything exists within that point of origin. Counting inward from 0 there's an infinity inside it. Counting inward backwards from zero there's another infinity. So, God is infinite if God is all and our origin.

 

[YoursTrue]

The op asked what our thoughts were on Spinoza. I answered accordingly. I have no problem with you standing on conviction in God and Moses, etc. This isn't about proving to you anything, but about how we viewed Spinoza's thoughts about God. There can certainly be logos or logoi utilized that aren't so religiously attuned, even from a guy like me, a dedicated - 30 plus year Christian. The question and honestly, the only reason I ever play both sides of the coin, is due to our differences .... What are they, why, and to help bridge the divides. So, no argument from me, but I could play the role of an Atheist and still be faithful to my understanding of God and truth and honor both faithfully, even with a few expected shortcomings as I go. We all fall short, right?

I think Spinoza's thoughts about God are -- shall we say in a manner of speaking -- out of this world. I don't mean that as a compliment. It is confusing, abstruse, hard to explain, and I believe, nonsensical. Since Spinoza is not alive, I know he cannot be offended, since he hears nothing and sees nothing. And if it is God's will, Spinoza will be resurrected regardless of his insurgency against the Jewish religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, you think that Jesus was the only one who taught compassion for all? Sorry, but you are so very wrong.

Thank you, metis. I certainly don't think that Jesus was the only one who taught compassion. But then there is the account Jesus gave to a man learned in the law, and so we must ask ourselves why did he give the account about the Levite, the priest, the Samaritan and the man wounded? The account goes partially like this, and I'm sure you know. Also Jesus said exactly what you are saying -- with further consideration.

Luke chapter 10:25-29
One day an expert in the law stood up to test Him. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26“What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'
(**Love your neighbor as yourself.)
28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus said. “Do this and you will live.”

29But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

(And then the story continues...)

 

[YoursTrue]

I think Jesus would respond positively to Advaita and Spinoza also.

I don't know about Advaita, but I know Jesus said he is the way and the life and the truth. He was specific about that.
John 14:6-Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

[Balthazzar]

I think Spinoza's thoughts about God are -- shall we say in a manner of speaking -- out of this world. I don't mean that as a compliment. It is confusing, abstruse, hard to explain, and I believe, nonsensical. Since Spinoza is not alive, I know he cannot be offended, since he hears nothing and sees nothing. And if it is God's will, Spinoza will be resurrected regardless of his insurgency against the Jewish religion.

I haven't studied Spinoza. but from what was presented in this thread, Spinoza's view is very similar to my own. Frankly, it's the only way I could make sense of a God concept and to also honor truth as we understand it. I've been a student of theology for around 30 years now. As a Christian, specifically, I'm obligated to the acknowledgement of truth. I will assume that for any type of religion to be worth any merit, it would be required to acknowledge truth. With this stated, and although you deem Spinoza as being some sort of insurgent against the Jewish religion, I'll disagree with your assessment. I'd be better classified as an insurgent against the Jewish religion (as a Christian) than would Spinoza, specifically due to Jesus being pedestaled to being the Jewish messiah and their resistance to that premise, specifically.

 

[metis]

Thank you, metis. I certainly don't think that Jesus was the only one who taught compassion. But then there is the account Jesus gave to a man learned in the law, and so we must ask ourselves why did he give the account about the Levite, the priest, the Samaritan and the man wounded? The account goes partially like this, and I'm sure you know. Also Jesus said exactly what you are saying -- with further consideration.

Luke chapter 10:25-29
One day an expert in the law stood up to test Him. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26“What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'
(**Love your neighbor as yourself.)
28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus said. “Do this and you will live.”

29But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

(And then the story continues...)

I have a question for you: If a Christian person doesn't much act with compassion but a Hindu person does, which is more living from what Jesus taught in his Two Commandments?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have a question for you: If a Christian person doesn't much act with compassion but a Hindu person does, which is more living from what Jesus taught in his Two Commandments?

I understand. There are many incidents in which we can show compassion.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Anyone care to dissect this particularly about "substance"? and what it means thereafter?

Yes, I'd love too! This is something I've thought about very much. I've only read the OP so far, so where are you at in your understanding?

Here is a simple graphic explain the very basics of his metaphysics... He was a Cartesian thinker, although he departed from Descartes on some key issues. According to Spinoza, God was the one and only substance, and everything followed from that substance.

This graphic is a bit more complicated, but of course is more precise.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Assuming this is the right forum to discuss this as peacefully as possible, I am learning somewhat (although for me it's hard to understand) about Spinoza's concept of God. So one comment reads, I'm just going to center on a few sentences because otherwise for me it gets too confusing.
"As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature.3 He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself. By that which causes itself, Spinoza means that God is the only being who does not derive from an external cause for his/her existence or an outside concept for his/her conceivability. Moreover, Spinoza claims that only God can be a substance since the existence of two or more substances with the same essence and attributes would necessarily be identical or incompatible. 4 That is, Spinoza believes if people were to try to perceive two or more substances of the same essence and attributes they would be unable to do so since there would be no differentiating characteristics between them that anyone can acknowledge as belonging to either one of them exclusively."
From -- Spinoza on God, Affects, and the Nature of Sorrow – Florida Philosophical Review
Anyone care to dissect this particularly about "substance"? and what it means thereafter?

wouldnt the answer to this be found in the opening statement and then finally in the last sentence of the conclusion in the article you quoted?

everything ultimately follows from God and that sadness is a person’s passage from a greater degree of perfection to a lesser one. 1 Contrastingly, Spinoza goes on to state that though everything ultimately derives from God, he/she cannot be the cause of sadness since he/she is perfect. 2 Despite what appears to be an incongruent argument, can one still find a way to claim that Spinoza is consistent when he states that all things ultimately derive from God’s flawlessness, despite the reality of sadness?​

​

by maintaining that God is perfect and that the existence of sadness derives from ignorance, and not him/her, this essay hoped to argue effectively that God’s perfection is still justifiable, despite the realities of sadness.​

​

Personally what i find interesting about such topics...rarely is the contribution of evil (through Satan) mentioned

 

[Balthazzar]

wouldnt the answer to this be found in the opening statement and then finally in the last sentence of the conclusion in the article you quoted?

everything ultimately follows from God and that sadness is a person’s passage from a greater degree of perfection to a lesser one. 1 Contrastingly, Spinoza goes on to state that though everything ultimately derives from God, he/she cannot be the cause of sadness since he/she is perfect. 2 Despite what appears to be an incongruent argument, can one still find a way to claim that Spinoza is consistent when he states that all things ultimately derive from God’s flawlessness, despite the reality of sadness?​

​

by maintaining that God is perfect and that the existence of sadness derives from ignorance, and not him/her, this essay hoped to argue effectively that God’s perfection is still justifiable, despite the realities of sadness.​

​

Personally what i find interesting about such topics...rarely is the contribution of evil (through Satan) mentioned

You apparently operate under a paradigm that God shouldn't feel sadness or any negative emotional disturbance due to your perception of what you think perfect, or perfection should mean. When you cross the bridge safely and are ok getting to the other side after first falling into the ditch, then maybe you'll have a better understanding of why we have what we need to effectively navigate. To answer your Satan reference, specifically and still part of the God is perfect paradigm per Spinoza's view, specifically.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You apparently operate under a paradigm that God shouldn't feel sadness or any negative emotional disturbance due to your perception of what you think perfect, or perfection should mean. When you cross the bridge safely and are ok getting to the other side after first falling into the ditch, then maybe you'll have a better understanding of why we have what we need to effectively navigate. To answer your Satan reference, specifically and still part of the God is perfect paradigm per Spinoza's view, specifically

apparently you didnt read the article from which i directly quoted. They are not my words!

In any case, to attach the level of interest i usually have to topics like this, I find it laughable that people go on about the human condition.

the equation is rather simple...instead of meandering through the writings of men, why not simply read the bible and get answers from the source?

I can already answer that question...you are a Christian evolutionist. The bible is full or error and so you must instead rely on another source of authority and explanation.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

So, you think that Jesus was the only one who taught compassion for all? Sorry, but you are so very wrong.

And btw, Jesus did teach that those who did not accept him would deserve hell, and that's not "compassion for all".

Did Christ preach they deserve hell or in fact did he preach that they deserve the kingdom of heaven but were choosing hell by not following him? He was critical of the jews actually, that they discriminated against others (read the story of the good samaritan)

 

[vulcanlogician]

You apparently operate under a paradigm that God shouldn't feel sadness or any negative emotional disturbance due to your perception of what you think perfect, or perfection should mean.

According to Spinoza, God never feels sadness at the state of things. The only way God feels sadness or regret is when we feel sadness or regret. And Spinoza thinks that we ought to NEVER feel sadness or regret.

 

[Balthazzar]

According to Spinoza, God never feels sadness at the state of things. The only way God feels sadness or regret is when we feel sadness or regret. And Spinoza thinks that we ought to NEVER feel sadness or regret.

I would disagree with the never ought to feel sadness or regret. I think these can help lead us towards greater understanding and more cooperative civilizations.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I would disagree with the never ought to feel sadness or regret. I think these can help lead us towards greater understanding and more cooperative civilizations.

I should have been more precise with my words. Spinoza thought that sadness and regret are the natural result of us reflecting on certain actions.

And, in that way, they are unavoidable and sometimes even "good." But, ultimately, we should strive to be in a place where we don't feel sadness or regret. The truly wise person, Spinoza thinks, is a person who is at peace with the world. If such a man reaches this point, he naturally won't feel sadness or regret. Those things are beneath him at that point.

 

[Balthazzar]

I should have been more precise with my words. Spinoza thought that sadness and regret are the natural result of us reflecting on certain actions.

And, in that way, they are unavoidable and sometimes even "good." But, ultimately, we should strive to be in a place where we don't feel sadness or regret. The truly wise person, Spinoza thinks, is a person who is at peace with the world. If such a man reaches this point, he naturally won't feel sadness or regret. Those things are beneath him at that point.

Possibly, I don't know. I haven't reached that point, and I'm not sure if I truly want to, due to the ramifications of the potential fall involved in a stance like that one. I will agree that they are better avoided, just not always possible.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Possibly, I don't know. I haven't reached that point, and I'm not sure if I truly want to, due to the ramifications of the potential fall involved in a stance like that one. I will agree that they are better avoided, just not always possible.

You are thinking about the negative ramifications. (As I do, as well.) But there are positive ramifications too. And they deserve equal consideration, don't they?

 

[Balthazzar]

You are thinking about the negative ramifications. (As I do, as well.) But there are positive ramifications too. And they deserve equal consideration, don't they?

If they didn't, I wouldn't bother avoiding.

 

[vulcanlogician]

If they didn't, I wouldn't bother avoiding.

The ideal person in Spinoza's view wouldn't feel pity or compassion. And that seems dangerous. But neither would they feel fear or hatred. Once you remove fear and hatred from the equation, things become a lot less dangerous.