Rejection of Pantheism?

By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-and-thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho,[45] with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys [46] and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favour, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.

File: IMG_2966.jpg (86KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x750px

>>3329723
So what the Joos were assblasted? It doesn't prove anything.

I've been waiting a while to make this thread and I'll be damned to Sheol if this is the last post.

So do I have to go read part one of Spinoza's text, or are you going to explain the argument

Spinoza believed in a "Philosophy of tolerance and benevolence"[60] and actually lived the life which he preached. He was criticized and ridiculed during his life and afterwards for his alleged atheism. However, even those who were against him "had to admit he lived a saintly life".[60] Besides the religious controversies, nobody really had much bad to say about Spinoza other than, "he sometimes enjoyed watching spiders chase flies".[60]

There is only one substance and that substance which comprises the universe is infinite and God is a being with infinite qualities, therefore the universe must be God.

I didn't expect an armchair philosopher to refute it I wanted an anon to tell me a philosopher who already has, but if you think you can go ahead.

>>3329713
Wouldn't pantheism be 100% in accordance with the philosophy of logos?

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

>>3329893
He's Jewish not Christian
>>3329890
Idk but if that is proposed in John 1:1 then it's Christian not Jewish

>>3329872
Well I'm definitely an armchair philosopher, I have no idea if any proper philospher has tried to refute it or not and I never read Spinoza. That said, my issue with pantheism in general is that saying the universe is god is basically redundant. We don't have any proof of gods, but we do have pretty ample proof that the universe (probably) exists. And we already have a name for the universe. It's the universe. Seems like any argument at all for pantheism relies on stretching the definition of god to it's limit, far enough for it to basically be identical to the definition of the universe itself. Always seemed pretty dumb to me.

Also
>There is only one substance and that substance which comprises the universe is infinite and God is a being with infinite qualities, therefore the universe must be God.

If that's a direct quote, there's a number of problems with it. Saying that there's only one substance is an assertion, and it's open to debate, and it really depends on what he means when he says 'substance', which isn't clear from the quote. On top of that, who's to say that the universe is infinite? I mean, he obviously didn't know about the current scientific model of the universe back in the 17th century, but today the universe is considered 'finite but boundless'. So that's a pretty big hole in his argument there, even if it's not his fault.

Shit like this just reminds me of how much of philosophy is really just semantic wank where they change definitions of words on a whim to fit the idea they're trying to convey.

Spinoza lived an outwardly-simple life as a lens grinder, turning down rewards and honours throughout his life, including prestigious teaching positions. He died at the age of 44 allegedly of a lung illness, perhaps tuberculosis or silicosis exacerbated by the inhalation of fine glass dust while grinding optical lenses. He is buried in the churchyard of the Christian Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague.[14]

>>3329960
That was actually just a shitty summary I wrote because his argument is written with a formal analytic structure, but I think what you said still applies.

Umm.../thread I guess

I think all that can be drawn from this is that none of our actions have moral significance, because there's no authority to define morality above God. In an odd way I guess he also disproves God, a separate entity that controls everything.

Also, I share the same sentiment on philosophy and semantics. It's really wuite annoying, because none of our language holds any metaphysical potency.