Emotional awareness, feelings, just a part of our physical makeup, or evidence of something greater?

[AV1611VET]

In Tripartitism, man is a trichotomy: body, soul, and spirit.

• body = feeds off of empirical data
  
• soul = feeds off of the mind, the will, and the emotions
  
• spirit = feeds off of the word of God

 

[Neogaia777]

OK; the way I see it, your religious beliefs are your own affair. To me, they're just another fanciful story - but what you describe is nothing like Spinoza's God.

Spinozism - Wikipedia

A couple of quotes from that article:

Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter) (all by itself and without intelligence, etc), they are quite mistaken"

"During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God - for which he was accused of atheism. Spinoza asserted that the whole of the natural universe is made of one Substance, and that substance he called "God".

"While the natural universe humans experience in the realm of mind and physical reality is part of God, it is only two attributes – thought and extension (expression) (and substance) – that are part of infinite attributes emanating from (or coming from, or starting with, or beginning with) God."

"Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence."

In short, Spinoza, from what he knew of of this universe/world/reality, saw "intelligence" in it, or behind it, etc, and he reasoned that God's "body" was quite literally all the "substance" of all of it, etc, which is also what Einstein believed, etc, due what he knew and observed, etc...

That the story of that God was being played out in the substance or material of this universe, etc...

And that determinism from the very beginning was true and was the "law" from the beginning, that originated with "God" in the beginning, etc...

That He/They made nature and the laws of nature, but was "one" with it/them, etc...

This is quite literally the "Father God", etc...

All is His "body", etc, and all is being played out in all that is His body, which is "all", etc...

Not God in and of the OT, nor Jesus Christ, but a One who is and has always been above and beyond them all, etc...

So far beyond, in fact, that He cannot/could not show us Himself personally, or in a personal way, without the other two, etc...

Or at least, that very last part, is one of my theories, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Spinozism - Wikipedia

A couple of quotes from that article:

Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"

"During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God - for which he was accused of atheism. Spinoza asserted that the whole of the natural universe is made of one Substance, and that substance he called "God".

"While the natural universe humans experience in the realm of mind and physical reality is part of God, it is only two attributes – thought and extension (and substance) – that are part of infinite attributes emanating from (or coming from, or starting or beginning with) God."

"Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence."

In short, Spinoza, from what he knew of of this universe/world/reality, saw "intelligence" in it, or behind it, etc, and he reasoned that God's "body" was quite literally all the "substance" of all of it, etc, which is also what Einstein believed, etc, due what he knew and observed, etc...

That the story of that God was being played out in the substance of this universe, etc...

And that determinism from the very beginning was true and was the "law" from the beginning, that originated with "God" in the beginning, etc...

That He/They made nature and the laws of nature, but was "one" with it/them, etc...

This is quite literally the "Father God", etc...

All is His "body", etc, and all is being played out in all that is His body, which is "all", etc...

Not God in and of the OT, but a One who is and has always been above and beyond them all, etc...

So far beyond, in fact, that He cannot/could not show us Himself personally, or in a personal way, without the other two, etc...

God Bless!

@FrumiousBandersnatch

Spinoza and Einstein and others who shared their beliefs, did so, because of what they saw in nature, etc, and believed that "that alone", was way more than enough evidence for such, etc, such an intelligence or intelligent being, etc, reasoned that He was all, etc, or that His body was all, etc, and that His story was being played out in and/or by all, etc, nature, substance, etc, and had no need to interfere with any of it from the beginning, etc... (He had/made others for that, etc)...

Anyway, they knew this could not be the God of any atypical religion at the time, etc, but what they don't know, or didn't know, is that it actually was, etc, the very same and exact Father God Jesus spoke of, etc, which was not God in and/or of the OT, which is where many got hung-up, etc, because that one is actually the Holy Spirit, etc, and then them, or those other two, along with Jesus, form the real true "Trinity", etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

In short, his God was not actually nature, not the thing of nature itself all by itself anyway, etc, (quoted earlier, etc), but the God or intelligence/intellect of that nature, etc, creation, etc, that was "one" with it, etc, and where people get all confused, etc, is where he starts talking about that One's body or substance, or being, being nature, or substance, or creation, or existence, or all that exists, etc, and that His or that One's nature, is being expressed in and by nature, because they are/were/were always "one", etc...

And in they're (Spinoza, Einstein, etc) not believing that that God was independent of it, etc...

But that it was He, and He was it, etc...

And was one with all and it, etc...

Including us, etc, yes, but beyond that, "all of it" also, etc...

That "God" was the intelligence of nature, etc...

And that when your learning about nature, or the natural world, or this universe, your learning about that God, cause they are one in the same, etc...

But nature in and of or all by itself or all alone is not "a" "God/god", etc... (Quoted earlier)...

But that all that is nature, or that is nature, or the/this universe, etc, is how that One has/did/has been expressing Himself, etc...

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Spinozism - Wikipedia

A couple of quotes from that article:

Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter) (all by itself and without intelligence, etc), they are quite mistaken"

"During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God - for which he was accused of atheism. Spinoza asserted that the whole of the natural universe is made of one Substance, and that substance he called "God".

"While the natural universe humans experience in the realm of mind and physical reality is part of God, it is only two attributes – thought and extension (expression) (and substance) – that are part of infinite attributes emanating from (or coming from, or starting with, or beginning with) God."

"Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence."

In short, Spinoza, from what he knew of of this universe/world/reality, saw "intelligence" in it, or behind it, etc, and he reasoned that God's "body" was quite literally all the "substance" of all of it, etc, which is also what Einstein believed, etc, due what he knew and observed, etc...

That the story of that God was being played out in the substance or material of this universe, etc...

And that determinism from the very beginning was true and was the "law" from the beginning, that originated with "God" in the beginning, etc...

That He/They made nature and the laws of nature, but was "one" with it/them, etc...

This is quite literally the "Father God", etc...

All is His "body", etc, and all is being played out in all that is His body, which is "all", etc...

Not God in and of the OT, nor Jesus Christ, but a One who is and has always been above and beyond them all, etc...

So far beyond, in fact, that He cannot/could not show us Himself personally, or in a personal way, without the other two, etc...

Or at least, that very last part, is one of my theories, etc...

God Bless!

OK - I think you'd get a better idea by reading Spinoza's 'Ethics'; in particular, 'Part 1: Concerning God', where he says (in the note to Proposition XVII): "Moreover, I will show below, without the aid of this proposition, that neither intellect nor will appertain to God's nature..." He then goes on at considerable (and obscure) length to explain why.

Also, 'Corollary I' of Proposition XXXII - "Hence it follows, first, that God does not act according to freedom of the will."

And Proposition XXXIII. "Things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or in any order different from that which has in fact obtained."

Now, you may not agree with his arguments or even his logic, but those are his words.

 

[Neogaia777]

OK - I think you'd get a better idea by reading Spinoza's 'Ethics'; in particular, 'Part 1: Concerning God', where he says (in the note to Proposition XVII): "Moreover, I will show below, without the aid of this proposition, that neither intellect nor will appertain to God's nature..." He then goes on at considerable (and obscure) length to explain why.

Also, 'Corollary I' of Proposition XXXII - "Hence it follows, first, that God does not act according to freedom of the will."

And Proposition XXXIII. "Things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or in any order different from that which has in fact obtained."

Now, you may not agree with his arguments or even his logic, but those are his words.

Well, maybe he had a few things right and a few things wrong then, but, either way, what I read about him and his ideas on wiki or whatever, did appeal to me, and did sound like many of them were talking about the true Father God to me...

Anyway, thanks for the chat...

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... what I read about him and his ideas on wiki or whatever, did appeal to me, and did sound like many of them were talking about the true Father God to me...

Sure - if you think God has neither intellect nor will (particularly not free will) and is deterministic
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Neogaia777]

Sure - if you think God has neither intellect nor will (particularly not free will) and is deterministic
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, the intellect is shown in what is, etc, and His will was set at and from the beginning, and His creation is/has been deterministic since then.

God Bless!

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, the intellect is shown in what is, etc, and His will was set at and from the beginning, and His creation is/has been deterministic since then.

God Bless!

I strikes me that, despite the best, gentle efforts of @FrumiousBandersnatch to set you right, you are determined to clothe Spinoza's beliefs with your own, particular suspicions as to the nature of God. That is unnecessary, unproductive and disrespectful to Spinoza. (But since he is dead, perhaps the last part doesn't matter too much. )

 

[Neogaia777]

I strikes me that, despite the best, gentle efforts of @FrumiousBandersnatch to set you right, you are determined to clothe Spinoza's beliefs with your own, particular suspicions as to the nature of God. That is unnecessary, unproductive and disrespectful to Spinoza. (But since he is dead, perhaps the last part doesn't matter too much. )

Well, there seems to be a lot of debate still on what or who exactly Spinoza's God is or was, etc...?

You guys, being athiests, view the concept or idea of his God from an athiestic perspective, while I, being a thiest, view his God from a more theistic perspective, etc...

But Spinoza himself did argue with a lot of people about his supposedly being called an athiest when he was called such, etc, and attempted to explain, etc, I just don't know how many people truly "got it", etc...

But if I am wrong about Spinoza, then I will apologize to him when I see him, or if and when I see him, etc...

(See post #28, etc)...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Sure - if you think God has neither intellect nor will (particularly not free will) and is deterministic
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Are you saying Spinoza didn't consider his God an actual God, etc...?

Because I think he might disagree with you, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Spinoza thought his God was synonymous with all that is, etc, one with it all, etc, substance, nature, etc, and that to learn about it/that, was to learn about his God, etc...

It is unclear whether or not he believed his God went beyond it/that, or was at all separate from it, etc, but it seems like He didn't actually believe He was separate from it, and if He went beyond it, it was only in the things that we had not yet discovered yet, or that had become fully known to or by us yet, etc...

Because of this, he more than likely didn't believe in an intellect that was separate from it, but did seem to believe that one was shown in and by it, etc, "it" being all that is, etc, substance, nature, etc, whether currently fully known to or by us yet, or not currently fully known to or by us yet, etc...

He believed that we were quite literally looking at or seeing (his) God all of the time, etc, though not all of Him yet, etc...

The intelligence/intellect he saw in what he was looking at, although not all of it yet, was synonymous with the intelligence, intellect, or mind, (or being, body, substance, etc), of his God that we were all learning about and/or looking at or seeing, etc, that they, all of that, were "one", etc, or all "one in the same things", etc, mind, intellect, intelligence, body, substance, nature, being, etc, all "one in the same", etc, that he called "God", etc... And as far as intellect or intelligence goes, maybe even quite literally that One's thoughts/being/substance, etc, quite literally being played out in it, or by it, as it was/is all unfolding, etc, all the "aforementioned things", etc, that he simply called "God", etc...

This is very, very, very close to what the True Father God is that Jesus spoke of, etc... Not God in and of the OT mind you, because that one is God the Spirit, etc, or is Holy Spirit, etc, but the absolute number one highest "All-Father God" Jesus spoke of, and/or had learned about somewhere along the way, etc...

Then tried to tell us about, and show us "who He is" by means of himself, etc...

I believe anyway, etc...

And if I am wrong, then like I said, I will apologize to Spinoza if and when I see him, etc, but I do not know if I will be the one having to be doing all the apologizing, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, there seems to be a lot of debate still on what or who exactly Spinoza's God is or was, etc...?

You guys, being athiests, view the concept or idea of his God from an athiestic perspective, while I, being a thiest, view his God from a more theistic perspective, etc...

But Spinoza himself did argue with a lot of people about his supposedly being called an athiest when he was called such, etc, and attempted to explain, etc, I just don't know how many people truly "got it", etc...

Read his 'Ethics', as I did, and see for yourself. I did quote him for you, but you don't appear to have accepted that. There has been much philosophical debate about exactly what Spinoza meant by 'God/nature', but not so much about the parts he is explicit about which leave little room for doubt (as quoted earlier).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying Spinoza didn't consider his God an actual God, etc...?

Because I think he might disagree with you, etc...

No. No-one knows what Spinoza considered his God to be, beyond what he wrote.

I'm saying your God and Spinoza's God are only describing the same God if your God has neither intellect nor will (particularly not free will) and is deterministic. I have supported this with direct quotes from Spinoza himself and referred you to the text from which they came.

If you want to argue the point, make a case based on what I actually said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because of this, he more than likely didn't believe in an intellect that was separate from it, but did seem to believe that one was shown in and by it, etc, "it" being all that is, etc, substance, nature, etc, whether currently fully known to or by us yet, or not currently fully known to or by us yet, etc...

He believed that we were quite literally looking at or seeing (his) God all of the time, etc, though not all of Him yet, etc...

The intelligence/intellect he saw in what he was looking at, although not all of it yet, was synonymous with the intelligence, intellect, or mind, (or being, body, substance, etc), of his God that we were all learning about and/or looking at or seeing, etc, that they, all of that, were "one", etc, or all "one in the same things", etc, mind, intellect, intelligence, body, substance, nature, being, etc, all "one in the same", etc, that he called "God", etc... And as far as intellect or intelligence goes, maybe even quite literally that One's thoughts/being/substance, etc, quite literally being played out in it, or by it, as it was/is all unfolding, etc, all the "aforementioned things", etc, that he simply called "God", etc...

This is very, very, very close to what the True Father God is that Jesus spoke of, etc... Not God in and of the OT mind you, because that one is God the Spirit, etc, or is Holy Spirit, etc, but the absolute number one highest "All-Father God" Jesus spoke of, and/or had learned about somewhere along the way, etc...

Then tried to tell us about, and show us "who He is" by means of himself, etc...

I believe anyway, etc...

And if I am wrong, then like I said, I will apologize to Spinoza if and when I see him, etc, but I do not know if I will be the one having to be doing all the apologizing, etc...

I have quoted words from Spinoza that explicitly contradict your assertions here.

Wilful ignorance is unfortunate; willful denial is just sad.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I will research Spinoza some more and maybe get back to you...

Thanks

God Bless!