Spinoza views Christ as the supreme model for a radical ethics that comes from a complete knowledge of and surrender to God's will (Nature). He contrasts his view to those of the priests, who use dogmatic bastardizations of Christ's teachings to take advantage of the fears and ignorance of the masses, and to those of mystics, who hide their ignorance of scripture behind vague aesthetic imagery. Who are some writers who see Christ like Spinoza does?
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Schiller, Wagner.
Where should I start with them?
Schiller in his letters to Goethe. Wagner in Parsifal and his regeneration writings (Religion and Art, "What Boots this Knowledge?", Know Thyself and Hero-dom and Christendom).
>If one would lay hand on the characteristic mark of Christianity, distinguishing it from all mono-theistic religions, it lies in nothing less than the upheaval of Law, of Kant's 'Imperative,' in whose place it sets free Inclination. In its own pure form it therefore is the presentation of a beautiful morality, or of the humanising of the Holy; and in this sense it is the only æsthetic religion.
You don’t.
>~~*Spinoza*~~
Who's Spinoza?
Spinoza my dick homosexual
Tolstoy, Jefferson, Zizek, Nietzsche (but he doesn’t think Christ’s morals are the best), Ernst Bloch. There’s more but I’m forgetting atm. Pretty common view
>Tolstoy
atheist
>Jefferson
gay
>Zizek
atheist
>Nietzsche
lilbit based and redpilled
>Bloch
jew
>Tolstoy
>atheist
huh?
So Tolstoy is bad for being an atheist but Nietzsche is based and redpilled? And Jefferson is bad because he is a “gay” even though he was more of an atheist than Tolstoy?
Where can I read about this
Theological-Political Treatise for his stuff on scripture
Ethics for his views on God/Nature
The former was an exercise in turdigity
Having issues with the mystics means you're low T
Ralph Waldo Emerson
>God's will (Nature)
What a moronic subversive israelite. Basically a crypto-Kabbalist
AI-generated response. Disregarded.
From where would Nature come if not from the will of God? Are you somehow denying that God created Nature, or that it's some kind of tumorous outgrowth that's opposed to His will? A strangely Gnostic perspective for someone accusing others of crypto-Kabbalism.
Created =/= Creator
Frankly I'm not very convinced that the divide is a clean one, given an "ex nihilo" view as opposed to some undefined prime matter just co-existing eternally with God.
If God is the only reality, and everything that exists derives 100% of its being and attributes from Him, how exactly is the created NOT ultimately an extension of the creator, or at least akin to a thought (or series of thoughts) in His mind? At the very least, it seems difficult to posit that all things are not somehow contained within God without resorting to a hard, hard dualism where there are two separate realities existing side by side from the outset, one of which isn't God.
Yeah, well you wouldn’t if you’re not convinced that God’s essence is distinct from God’s energies. The fact remains that to worship nature is polytheism and to identify nature with God is a mere step from polytheism.
And if this God is mature is an impersonal God that totally violates basic triadic conceptions of God.
>Yeah, well you wouldn’t if you’re not convinced that God’s essence is distinct from God’s energies.
How could they be, meaningfully, if they are both entirely from God? That would seem to indicate that God produces something from within His own essence that isn't God. That seems logically incoherent.
>The fact remains that to worship nature is polytheism and to identify nature with God is a mere step from polytheism.
"Polytheism" is really a misnomer and an outdated term all around. It is extremely rare - almost nonexistent - for instance, for any religion to actually assert that the fundamental ground and origin of being is an absolute multiplicity with multiple uncreated realities just existing side-by-side without explanation. The "gods" in plural are generally either considered to be different aspects or emanations from the One (Hinduism, Neoplatonism, Orphic) or worship is directed exclusively to the One in spite of other, lesser divinities existing (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
Regardless, even a pure pantheism would not match the definition of "polytheism", since even considering God identical with Nature (which Spinoza didn't actually entirely do; Nature is more like just one aspect of Him) isn't denying His oneness.
But what’s his tax plan like?
He's a israelite
priests and mystics
I am currently reading Practice In Christianity by Kierkegaard (he considered it his best, truest and most important work) and he tangentially deals with something similar. His faith is obviosuly very different from Spino but his criticisms of the state of Christianity in his day have something in common with him. But thats only going of the single paragraph you wrote.
>complete surrender to god's will
>never had sex, died a virgin
PFFFFT