By the way, what happened to Creative?

Creative we had and finished a whole philisophical discsussion and you weren't ever here.

Of course we may yet hear from others this evening.

this was fun, now I gotta do something more constructive to my present situation.

Yes Abra, you are correct. I just wanted to make sure you understood why Spinoza was a great thinker and why he was so loved and revered thoughout the centuries.

Sometimes wrong is the right way to create new paths. Without the wrongs of Spinoza we would not have had so many paths from which to choose.

Abra wrote:



This is not a good summation of the philosophy of Spinoza. He made good rationalizations considering two things. First, that his thought process began with the assumption that there is a God and secondly, he is working within the confines of predetermined dualistic metaphysics, which at the time, were thought to be truth.

The idea was that substance took two forms, I explained this in my previous posts. Spinoza did not limit the capacity of the substance of God, in fact he extended the substance of God to the infinite by stating that part of every creation of God was a ‘modification’ and hense an extension.

Spirit is required, that is the part that is real, as far as reality goes for the natural. It is the physical that is illusory – that is the manifested, modified, part of God.




The part of ‘substance’ that you refer to as physical is not eternal, only the natural version of substance is eternal and that is God. We are not eternal as physical beings, according to Spinoza, the only actual reality is mental as it is the only attribute of God that is natural. Therefore it is eternal. However, it is not separate from the nature of God, therefore it contains no individuality.

Yes Spinoza was wrong, because he began his thought process from the bottom up (There is a God so…..) and also because he did not allow for the mental and the physical to be one in substance, therefore there can be no individuality and whatever we have created, be it a game or an alphabet or math, it is of no substance what-so-ever, because it is not a modification of creation, but rather an illusion of a mental process that can not exist outside the substance that is God.

It took me so long to think about and write my last post (in between my errands) I forgot to read what was written. Sorry.

Abra and JB - What Spinoza thought of as substance is not substance consistent with your ideas. Spinoza has attempted to break down his idea of 'natural' or original substance by connecting or defining particualar vocabulary down to the minutest pattern.

This is EXACTLY the problem that I was stating as existing in my last post.

The dualism occurs because the substance is considered to be only two possible forms. Mental & spiritual (God) and physical and spatial, the extended subtance of God, such as our bodies and every other physical perception, trees, flowers, dogs etc.

In this dualism 'reality' consists of the substances 'mental and physical'.

According to the philosophy of Cartesian's and followers, tehre are only two ultimate and irreducible kinds of reality mental and physical. That one kind of substance cannot be a form of, or reduced to , the other.

This thinking BEGINS with the idea that God exists. It does not prove anything except for the idea that one can create any kind theory if one begins an exploration with the belief that a God does exist.

Furthermore, there has been no consideration give to the mental precesses of the human mind. For certainly there are many things that have been created, that exist becasue of our mental processes.

These can not be in any way consistent with perception of the extended substance or connections made between extended substances unless there is free will. But free will would allow that the mind functions "seperately" from the nature of God. But Spinoza has already defined the irriducible nature of God as being mind and spirit.

Since the time of Spinoza a many great thinkers have used his thoughts, ideas and theories as a step ladder. With each new idea comes a new way to think about our state of being.

Spinoza was great, but he was great in the same way that Aristotle, Plato, and Descartes were. He was not right, his thoughts and ideas were guided by the information at hand and information in his mind. Thanks to his writing them down, we have grown.

I think before you can discuss Spinoza there has to be some information about the philosophy of Descartes’s metaphysical dualism. This dichotomy, though brilliant for the time, created a divide that other, future thinkers, like Spinoza, Leibniz, the Humanists and the Empiricists attempted to fill. Spinoza was among the first and his body of work is consumed to this day by every would-be thinker. The reason Spinoza is so widely acclaimed is actually because his theories, his thoughts have not succeeded in filling in the gab created by Descartes. Instead he created a fabulous work of words that leaves a fill in the gap opportunity. I’ll get back to that idea.

Spinoza, like other of his contemporary philosophers, reacted to the metaphysical and epistemological arguments supporting God and the nature of Its existence.

Spinoza reasoned that substances, by their nature, must be self-contained. I find this reasoning odd, to say the least as he also determined that there can be only one substance and therefore that substance must be God, so his words, ‘their nature’ make little sense, unless there is more than one God. (that’s philosophy for another time) Now, Spinoza came about this by using some of the arguments stated in the OP.

In the NATURAL, the substance is God, therefore, anything of substance, not natural, is a modification of God, or a creation of the natural substance. Being a modified creation, it is illusory, as only its essence is the natural (of God). But, as God is eternal and because any attribute OF God, must also be eternal, so then are all the modifications of the extension of the Gods’ attributes.

Furthermore, according to Spinoza, infinity does exist, it exists as the many essences of creation. An essence of substance is an attribute and among these infinite attributes is the substance consisting of mind and body. Here, then, is the dualism that Descartes began.

Another reaction to Descartes, beginning at the same pantheistic view is put forth by a Spinoza contemporary, Leibniz (Wilhelm von Leibniz). However he breaks down the idea of substance as being completely self-contained. This goes along with the idea that all substance must be self-contained, obviously any reasonable thought would tell you that this would create an infinite number of simple substances. He calls these simple substances monads and God is the super-monad. Now monads do not perceive in the same way as the creation or substance perceives. LOL – this can get pretty in depth.

The point I’d like to make gets back to the last sentence in my first paragraph. Spinoza set the stage with his philosophy for almost all the great thinkers who have come after. The reason this occurred is that Spinoza considered information for his theories from a very limited source. In so doing he ignored points that he felt were crystal clear but they were not.

One of the greatest faults with the theories of Spinoza and Leibniz and every other who followed in this dualistic thinking is that they fail to take into consideration the brain of thinking and free willed individuals.

How have they done this? They strictly structured their theories in the definitions they have created for the metaphysical and psychophysical dualism they attempt to explain.

If you’re still with me and are interested in learning more about the error in this dualistic thinking – please let me know. Otherwise I won’t waste my time.

I LIKE THE NEW THREAD CREATIVE.!

Hi Kat, I'm so glad to hear Chuy is doing better and that you had him taken care of. It is certainly the worst feeling in the world to watch suffering of loved ones and feel utterly helpless. Dogs, cats and babies are the worst because you know they can't understand when they're in pain. So you did good, in the end we can only do what we can do.

If a guypasserby, passing a bar in a car, jumps out of his car and begins to taunt, guyleaving, as he is leaving the bar, maybe about his limp or about the color of his skin, or about what might be perceived to be homosexual traits, and eventually guypasserby, jumps in front of the guy and fires his fist into the guyleavings face as he yells "go to %$!! you nig@$&" and buyleaving falls and hits his head on a rock and later dies.

What should the punishment be for guypasserby. Being taunted, being jabbed and pushed, or being punched in the face or all of these, as well being slammed in the head with a rock?

Because recently guypasserby was given 3 years in prison, because there could no INTENT proved, when possession of a narcotic can get you 25 years when your only intent was to use it or was totally unclear.

Of course if a state happens to have a anti-discrimination laws like the kind of law the Matthew Shephard Act would give at the federal level, then intent to murder might be proven - but still what would the punishment be?

This is probably the most enlightening part you wrote. Obviously it would make sense that the Catholic Church might ‘teach’ this to the uneducated masses. After all they have LOST a lot of revenue to other denominations. Of course now we understand why evangelizing is so important to Christian values.



And with weapons ineptly hid, she slinks, as quietly as one can slink with metal toed army boots, from the hidden cove of ignorance, to pounce upon the perceived “evil deceptions” that threaten her status as a saint in the heavens of her white washed imagination. The stains of past offensive attacks covering her white attire until even Clorox is of no use. Thus, logic and reasoning have lost meaning in the convolutions that exist in her mind. And looking into the mirror of judgment she sees only the sparkling, crisp white and sinless embodiment of purity and truth. Like a three year old she trusts that this is also what her God will see and judge. But she has many more fights within her and many more foes and doubtless the dark cave of ignorance in which she exists will continue to hide from her sight the stains of truth that cover her garment and the stress of lies that lay deep within the ever creasing skin of the Dorian Grey she has become. Only the mirror is her friend.

I was just inspired to write a bit of prose there.



And of Baptism and the Eucarist, and Confirmation, and remember that whole not eating meat on Friday adventure? All of these caused huge divisions within the church. And there are many more. Don’t stop now, we may ACTUALLY get some to ADMIT to the dogma of doctrine they adhere to and why NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE GOING TO HEAVEN and why and how so many of them teach “EVIL DECEPTIONS”.

Tribo - thanks, I already knew, you would not have an answer, your's is not a wide path given to a lot of hand-holding and concern for other's opinions. Thanks though, for trying.


Miles, I see now where you were going with your previous post. Actually I rather figured your particular structure would be pretty uninterested in the law (of man) unless it was to have any effect on your freedom to worship as you see fit.

Thanks - you have given an answer equal to my intended question.

I must be speaking to vaguely.

Here is the question. If you are a member of any organized religion, OR if you have beleiefs' based on written dogma, would that, in any way, dictate to you how you should act with regards to any particular polictical activity.

I gave one example already. How would your religious peers react to hear that you were fighting AGAINST the welfare of children?

Another example, how would your religious peers or authorities view your very verbal and involved actions to promote a war?

How would your religious peers or religious authority figures deal with you, if they saw you marching to PROTECT pro-choice?

Or how would those same people view your actions if you were to actively try to change the minds of your fellow congragationalists to allow civil unions at the Federal Level.

In other words If you can fight FOR something with the blessing of your religious convictions, can you also fight against something with with all the same blessings?

The Amish are the only group I know who separate themselves from the law of man. They follow only what is absolutely necessary, and on several occasions the governments have had to give in, but only to the Amish. They believe their law is not of this earth, but they do what they believe they were meant to do, render unto Ceasar - but only when it does not go against their dogmatic beliefs.

Do you have any such beliefs?

I think, once again, there seems to be a streak of paranoia running through the crowd.

I was not interested in how you view the rights of your particular church withing the government, I was interested in how your particular religious dogma dictated your actions as far as getting involved with political affairs?

Here's an example. Let's say you really have a big chip on your shoulder against Mexicans. Now let's say that a school district in you state wants more funds in order to higher interpreters or special needs teachers to cater to the non-english speaking students.

NOW let's say that YOU personally don't agree with this. How would your religions or your religious dogma view your attempts to get involved with politics and STOP those kids from having every advantage, even though you don't believe they should.

That's just an example but maybe you'll get the picture now.


BB - I believe your story, I've had of my own. For some reason, Christians tend to think they are the only group discriminated against. I didn't even set this OP up to be about Christians, it was simply about religious doctrines.

You know somethin cherub, I like angels - a lot. As far as art goes I've seen some absoluetley beautiful angels. I especially like the cinnamatic, or maybe it's computer generated, art that shows wings attached so perfectly to humans that you could swear they would fly. It just looks natural.

I began a tradition of making/creating most of my gifts to people when I was a teenager. I've done it all these years. My family was big on Christmans and one year I made angel dolls out of paper, they were beautiful. The next year I crochetted angel tree toppers, like 20 of them.

Anyway, I have one left, it was an extra, one of the paper dolls. It's packed away, for when I move. If I could, I would send it to you. But maybe you can consider it one of your 10,000. Even though you don't have it, you know where it is.

thanks BB - that's a fair reply. What's more, I think what you've said is a fair representation of what almost everyone in the US believes. For example, the only time people have an opinion of political affairs is when they think something is affecting them personally.

The truth is no one much cares what the government does as long it doesn't interfere with how they expect to live their lives.

BUT ACTUALLY - what I was wondering is if anyone in JSH land hold any particualy "religious beleifs" or "religious morals" regarding political activity.

Example - refusal to go to war, refusal to participate in any political arena, even jury duty or if a particular religion frowns of voting, for example. Along those lines what would any religion think about an individual getting involved PRO OR CON to civil rights political activity?

ANYONE?

Wouldee, your last post came off pretty positive. I actually understood all your references. And just when I was wondering
"through which denomination did you receive your baptism"
you also answered that.


I also understand where and how it is you attempt to integrate all Christians under the same umbrella, but I still see it as a pipe dream.

Once again, the reasoning boils down to the argument of how one is led by the Holy Spirit.

Although I often disagree with you, and have even had my differences with Miles, you can, occasionally, seem inspired, although I see much more inspiration from Miles. (please don't take offence) As the point I'm making is that the two of you are more often in disagreement than otherwise. Yet you both claim to take your lead through the Holy Spirit.

NOW - multiply the number of voices speaking with the claim of being led by the HS by the popultion of the worlds Christians and there is no way for logic or rational to be conceeded.

I will tell you one think, when you are calm and deliberate, you actually make more sense, even though I don't agree with your ideas.

I adore tapastries, actually any kind of woodworking as well. I imagine your realm to be quite inspirational.

I also agree with how you have determined what fits with your 'style' and what doesn't. I think, it's not so much that you are a collector as you wish to surround yourself with the sentiments of your beliefs. Beliefs that that seem to allow you to enjoy and recieve somthing of value from the inpired art works of others.

Thanks for the reply. How enjoyable it is to have a discussion, without offense being taken at every word.

Where does your religion stand with regards to affairs of state?

If the State is seperate, at the level of the law, from all religions than how would your participation, in any way, with the governance of state be viewed by your religious dictates?

Yes Miles, you are, of course absolutely correct. You see it, I see it but most Christians do not see it that way.

In fact, though they will be tolerant in the presence of other Christians, they don't always give that same tolerance to
non-Christians.

If a Christian can FIGHT so long, hard and bitterly just to side with a "political" party in a campaign, doesn't that have a great deal to say about how those Christians will treat others?

Actually, when Christians make those kind of comments, they do so because their PRIDE and their EGO will not allow them to be the Christian they claim to have so much faith over.

If logic of any kind can not be disputed, and when all the questions expecting critical thought, can not be turned into rational answers, then the ideal, from a Christian point of view, would simply be to become humble and silent.

So when I see Christians 'argue' with childish expression, I know they are what BB discusses in another post.

Once again, human nature is proven to be stronger than a belief.

Actually what has always confused me. It is not just the book that seems to be required, it is also the Holy Spirit that is needed in order to INTERPRET, PROPERLY, the scriptures.

Perhaps this idea would hold a lot more power if, indeed, interpretation by those who insist they are guided by the HS, actually all came out the same.

But it doesn't - and it only takes a quick look at the all the various sects and denominations to see that the differences in "guidance" from the HS are significant enought to divide allegances.

Actually, I rather believe that there are 'leaders' (very few) who have determined how to translate and what spin to put on scripture and it's not even so much the Bible that is believed as it is THESE people in power, who have LED the interpretation.

Then all people have to do is say the Holy Spirit guided them, when in fact they simply followed the interpretation of another.

Two ideas that need each other to function, properly, and no possible way to back either one up.

So BB - why do you want these kind of reminders? It seems to me that paying for such items is a strange kind of ownership psyche. Why do you feel the need to own such things?

Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand.

What I can understand is enjoying the beauty of art by a skilled and inspired mind and hand. But again there is a point at which OWNERSHIP seems selfish, an ego reinforcer and a waste of resouces. A gift, on the other hand, is most certainly a welcome part of my decor.