Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[karlhenning]

You keep changing the ground.

Ah, I see you've met Eric!

[Homo Aestheticus]

You keep changing the ground. 

I am sorry Xenophanes, but I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.

[Bulldog]

I am sorry Xenophanes, but I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.

So, what's your next move?  Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it, or are you just going to keep wagging your tongue?

[Josquin des Prez]

So, what's your next move?  Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it, or are you just going to keep wagging your tongue?

Nota bene, when threatened with reprisal for your bad behavior, never fail to mention the final solution.

[Homo Aestheticus]

So, what's your next move?  Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it ?

Not at all.

The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei, Xenophanes and other Christians here,

A question:

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Here is a brief overview:

"Spinoza abjured both the God of Israel and the people of Israel, and replaced his old religion with an audacious faith in the supreme power of human reason. Spinoza's radicalism begins in his critique of religion. In the anonymously published  Theological-Political Treatise, he insists on the distinction between philosophy, which aims at truth, and theology, which aims, he says, at obedience. He revolts against revelation as a source of truth, and rejects fundamental doctrines like divine providence, free will, reward and punishment, election, the possibility of miracles, and the immortality of the soul. Although Hobbes, in his Leviathan, had already taken a swipe at the Mosaic authorship of the "Five Books of Moses," Spinoza more or less fathers biblical criticism by rejecting the Bible's divine authorship. Though he stops well short of endorsing a religion-free polity, and though he cautions against expressing such an opinion to the masses, Spinoza deems adherents to organized religion slavish and superstitious. He articulates a radical determinism that banishes purpose and contingency and chance, and allows into the world no arbitrary or spontaneous events. (It is in this sense that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God.") He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature. This God-or-Nature, this infinite substance outside of which nothing exists, is eternal, necessary, self-caused, self-sufficient, perfect, and perfectly indifferent to us"

******

What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ? 

[Xenophanes]

Andrei, Xenophanes and other Christians here,

A question:

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Here is a brief overview:

"Spinoza abjured both the God of Israel and the people of Israel, and replaced his old religion with an audacious faith in the supreme power of human reason. Spinoza's radicalism begins in his critique of religion. In the anonymously published  Theological-Political Treatise, he insists on the distinction between philosophy, which aims at truth, and theology, which aims, he says, at obedience. He revolts against revelation as a source of truth, and rejects fundamental doctrines like divine providence, free will, reward and punishment, election, the possibility of miracles, and the immortality of the soul. Although Hobbes, in his Leviathan, had already taken a swipe at the Mosaic authorship of the "Five Books of Moses," Spinoza more or less fathers biblical criticism by rejecting the Bible's divine authorship. Though he stops well short of endorsing a religion-free polity, and though he cautions against expressing such an opinion to the masses, Spinoza deems adherents to organized religion slavish and superstitious. He articulates a radical determinism that banishes purpose and contingency and chance, and allows into the world no arbitrary or spontaneous events. (It is in this sense that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God.") He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature. This God-or-Nature, this infinite substance outside of which nothing exists, is eternal, necessary, self-caused, self-sufficient, perfect, and perfectly indifferent to us"

******

What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ? 

Well, Spinoza would have you seek peace of mind and control over your emotions, as did the Stoics, but you don't seem to be there.

I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.

That seems to be good advice, as you seem to need to come to terms with whatever is bothering you.  No one can really do that for you.

I'm not an expert on Spinoza, but I have in the past read a bit of him and some of the histories of philosophy.

I know Spinoza has some place in the history of biblical criticism (most of which has been carried out be religious believers, contrary to the summary provided).  It is easy enough to doubt Moses wrote the Pentateuch (it recounts his death, for one thing), but others seem to have had more to do with actually analyzing and coming up with four bodies of literature in it providing different presentations and theologies is another.  He doesn't seem to have had much to do with that.

Spinoza appears to expect philosophy to achieve salvation in the intellectual love of God.  Such projects are exceedingly difficult, and so are open only to elites, not the common people. 

I believe Christianity is more of a bhakti or devotional and practical religion, and as such is open to ordinary people. 

[Florestan]

What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ? 

The individual promoted by Spinoza is a cold, objective, never-weeping, never-laughing, always rational, passionless and lifeless robot.

My sympathy goes entirely with the full humanity of Dostoyevsky, whose heroes are the exact opposite of the Spinozian machines: they are hot, subjective, they weep, they cry, they are sometimes irrational, they are passionate, and life pulsates in their every thought and action.

I'd rather have dinner with Ivan Karamazov than with... wait, I can't think of any embodiment of the Spinozian ideal. So I guess I'll invite Myshkin as well.

[Catison]

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Jesus was not only a religious figure, but a historical figure.  This is unique among world religions.  So if we examine the evidence of the gospels in the New Testament as a statement of historical fact, we find that Jesus was in fact God.  Being Catholic, I also believe that Jesus himself established a Church (as it is written by St. Matthew), and this Church proclaims the truth of the New Testament as it extends beyond the historical representation of Jesus  in the gospels to the theology of St. Paul's epistles through Revelation.  This is somewhat different the protestant understanding of the Bible, for which is a matter of faith that it contains truth.  Of course, that is not to say that the Catholic understanding does not involve faith, but that it is a different faith.

[Bulldog]

The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

Could be there are many people like you.

[Guido]

Jesus was not only a religious figure, but a historical figure.  This is unique among world religions.  So if we examine the evidence of the gospels in the New Testament as a statement of historical fact, we find that Jesus was in fact God.  Being Catholic, I also believe that Jesus himself established a Church (as it is written by St. Matthew), and this Church proclaims the truth of the New Testament as it extends beyond the historical representation of Jesus  in the gospels to the theology of St. Paul's epistles through Revelation.  This is somewhat different the protestant understanding of the Bible, for which is a matter of faith that it contains truth.  Of course, that is not to say that the Catholic understanding does not involve faith, but that it is a different faith.

Erm... Mohammed?

[Catison]

Erm... Mohammed?

Mohammad never claimed to be God.  And, as far as I understand it, the Quran is not historical, because it was dictated to him by the angel Gabriel.  What is unique about Jesus is that his authority is not based on a written text, but upon actions.  Jesus did not write a word of the Bible, of course, but the historical nature of the New Testament (a limited historicity, as this was not its primary purpose) is a witness to these actions.

[Guido]

You're not going to deny that he was a historical figure though are you? (which was my contention)

The Haddith, the Sunnah?

[Catison]

You're not going to deny that he was a historical figure though are you? (which was my contention)

The Haddith, the Sunnah?

No, I'm not denying that he was historical in that he actually existed.  I am saying that his religious theology is not based on a historicity.  Sorry, I realize I wasn't be very clear.

[Guido]

Ah, I see! I think we've argued on this board about the historicity of the new testament before, so lets not bother to do it again! 

[karlhenning]

Not at all.

The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

You find hostility in every forum you frequent... Why is that?

Socrates said it best: The unexamined life is not worth living.  Some of us are too busy whingeing to examine the life we live.

[karlhenning]

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Why "as opposed to"?

[karlhenning]

. . . He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature.

Which is either pointless (since there is alread the word, Nature) or a statement of faith ("I believe that God is just Nature").  Christians (we can probably say, to tie this in with your nominal subject-header, all monotheists) believe in a God Who created Nature.  In the Christian view, then (nor should it take any great imagination on your part to have understood long, long before today, that this is the Christian view, but you've never yet displayed any talent for actually listening to anyone whose opinion you do not perceive — rightly or wrongly — as neatly aligning with yours), to posit a God who is identical with nature, is not much different than to posit a watchmaker who is identical with the watch.

You do see that the latter viewpoint is an error?

[karlhenning]

Why "as opposed to"?

Mind you, one could conceivably find value in Spinoza's discussion of ethics, without endorsing his theology . . . .

[Fëanor]

...
The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

Jews know perfectly well, though very few will admit, that it is their own sense of separation, their own sense of superiority, that has alienated them time and again from the indigenous populations amongst whom they live.

Does this justify the oppression they have suffered?  No, but it explains it.