Originally posted by Bosse de Nage One of the reasons Spinoza was excommunicated by the Dutch Jewish community was that he claimed Moses didn't write the Bible.
Thats interesting. I wasn't aware that anyone except the very ignorant thought that moses wrote any of the Bible (other than the 10 commandments dictated to him by God). I certainly didn't think that the Jews did.
I referred to a name of God supposedly uttered to Moses in a passage of Exodus. Yet instead of taking your cue from Moses' God and actually calling him by that name you instead insist on using the word 'God'. In addition, you don't appear to believe in the existence of Moses' God anyway.
I can only guess that you do not really want to tell me why you use the word.
I referred to a name of God supposedly uttered to Moses in a passage of Exodus. Yet instead of taking your cue from Moses' God and actually calling him by that name you instead insist on using the word 'God'. In addition, you don't appear to believe in the existence of Moses' God anyway.
I can only guess that you do not really want to tell me why you use the word.[/b]
You're not getting it. That particular name of God is a key to understanding Spinoza's idea of a nonpersonal God. Whether Moses actually existed is irrelevant to the meaning of the story. If you don't get that, you won't get any of this stuff. And you're not obliged to.
You might find this interesting too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theologico-Political_Treatise
Spinoza was writing in the seventeenth century, before the Enlightenment, even, so it's unsurprising that his views should have met with heated opposition.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage 1. Evidently not. English didn't exist at the time ... so Moses wouldn't have understood him.
What God supposedly said was "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh'', which has multiple meanings corresponding to what I quoted.
2. No kidding.
3. So what? Perhaps dictionaries are less than useful in a discussion like this.
Nope, didnt say "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh" because that was jibrish at the time still is.
The are not sure what acctully transpired at that time.
I know some hebrew and if I remeber it is more like Ani asher ani ve echad.
Originally posted by theprotectors Nope, didnt say "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh" because that was jibrish at the time still is.
The are not sure what acctully transpired at that time.
I know some hebrew and if I remeber it is more like Ani asher ani ve echad.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You're not getting it. That particular name of God is a key to understanding Spinoza's idea of a nonpersonal God. Whether Moses actually existed is irrelevant to the meaning of the story. If you don't get that, you won't get any of this stuff. And you're not obliged to.
Can you at least tell me whether Spinoza's God is a conscious being or not?
If not then I still do not see any good rational for using the word 'God' for a 'non-personal God'.
Spinoza was writing in the seventeenth century, before the Enlightenment, even, so it's unsurprising that his views should have met with heated opposition. I actually had not realized that anyone took the idea that Moses wrote part of the Bible seriously, it appears however that many Jews and Christians do.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am ???
Simple. just because it says so in wikipedia doesnt mean it right. For crying out very low, I went and looked in a bible A hebrew bible and you and they are guess what...
Originally posted by theprotectors Simple. just because it says so in wikipedia doesnt mean it right. For crying out very low, I went and looked in a bible A hebrew bible and you and they are guess what...
I did some digging around. The vocalisation I quoted is a common English rendering, but it seems the issue more complicated than I realised (and I didn't think it was simple):
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2001-May/010804.html
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Sorry for that, chief! It's the best answer I've got.
As far as I can tell Spinoza defines the whole universe in its entirety as 'God'. Unless he believed he knew more about he universe than we do, or wished to separate his concept of the universe from the actual universe, I do not see why he should use the word 'God' which traditionally means something else rather than using the word 'universe'.
As I said before, I suspect he started off by thinking about a typical theist God and slowly came to the 'revelation' that God is infact the universe, but in doing so did not realize that he should have at that point stopped using the word 'God' and instead started using the word universe.
You on the other hand clearly have other reasons for using the word 'God' that you don't wish to share. You have a lot in common with Arrakis on that front.
Originally posted by twhitehead As far as I can tell Spinoza defines the whole universe in its entirety as 'God'. Unless he believed he knew more about he universe than we do, or wished to separate his concept of the universe from the actual universe, I do not see why he should use the word 'God' which traditionally means something else rather than using the word 'universe'.
As I said ...[text shortened]... that you don't wish to share. You have a lot in common with Arrakis on that front.
No doubt you're entirely correct in all your surmisings, pal. If only Spinoza could have met you, you'd have put him straight. Newton would have valued your insights as well, I'm sure. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to discuss my ulterior motives with my old buddy Arrakis.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I did some digging around. The vocalisation I quoted is a common English rendering, but it seems the issue more complicated than I realised (and I didn't think it was simple):
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2001-May/010804.html
Sorry, but nothing of this is simple, acctuly it a very hard to debate because it leaves room for persons to have their own views (nothing wrong with that), But like Einstain as some said in this forum it all about the question...
(that was me)
😀
Originally posted by theprotectors Sorry, but nothing of this is simple, acctuly it a very hard to debate because it leaves room for persons to have their own views (nothing wrong with that), But like Einstain as some said in this forum it all about the question...
(that was me)
😀
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I should have been a Jew.
You can always to your neerest synagog and talk to a rabbi and start the Precedings to become a jew if you wish...
I hear that they do that and poeple acctuly do it to.
Maybe a window of oppertunaty knocking?
But first you need few no's along the way from jews I hear because it hard road to travel.
Einstein the atheist.
15 May '08 08:21
Back to Top