[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.18073570 [View]
File: 25 KB, 333x499, Moses 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18073570

>>18073544
>The distinction between natura naturata and natura naturans comes from Spinoza’s Ethics. If for Spinoza, God and nature are interchangeable, and nature has two aspects, natura naturata (All) and natura naturans (One), then for Spinoza God is All and One. Thus it is easy to see how Hen kai Pan became the watchword of both Spinozism and Hermeticism in the 18th-century, which is the subject of Assmann’s next chapter.

>Cudworth wishes to show that the idea of one supreme God is entirely natural, not the product of idiosyncratic fancy or pious fraud.

>Cudworth distinguishes between “unmade and self-existent gods” — Spinoza called the unmade and self-existent “substance” and identified it with with God/nature — and “native and mortal gods” — i.e., gods which are relative to particular societies and which have the status of higher-ordered created and finite beings. Cudworth claims that no ancient people ever claimed that there is a plurality of “unmade and self-existent” gods. Instead, they believed that there is only one unmade and self-existent god, who creates all beings — including “native and mortal gods"….Cudworth sums up his thesis by claiming that “the generality of Greekish Pagans acknowledged One Universal and All-comprehending Deity, One that was All.”

>The idea that God is “One and All” (Greek Hen kai Pan) is not the same as the Biblical view, which claims that God is one but not identifiable with the all. The cosmos is created by God and sustained by God but also separate from God. The pagan teaching is that in our deepest nature we are one with God. The Biblical teaching is that in our deepest nature we are nullities, sustained in existence only by the will of a separate God.

https://counter-currents.com/2014/07/notes-on-moses-the-egyptian-part-3/

>> No.17314591 [View]
File: 25 KB, 333x499, Moses 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17314591

>>17312101
>>17312143
>The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
https://archive.is/QMWAa


>Freud; Moses and Monotheism
https://archive.org/details/mosesandmonothei032233mbp

>Ancient Egyptians believed that “the gods are social beings, living and acting in ‘constellations,’” wrote German Egyptologist Jan Assmann. Yahweh, on the other hand, is “the Jealous One” (Exodus 34:14). He is a solitary god who manifests toward all other gods an implacable intolerance that characterizes him as a sociopath among his peers.

>From the third millennium BCE onward, nations founded their diplomacy and foreign trade on their capacity to match their gods, thus acknowledging that they were living not only on the same earth, but under the same heavens. “Contracts with other states,” explains Jan Assmann, “had to be sealed by oath, and the gods to whom this oath was sworn had to be compatible.

>Tables of divine equivalences were thus drawn up that eventually correlated up to six different pantheons.” But Yahweh could not be matched up with any other god; his priests forbade doing so. “Whereas polytheism, or rather ‘cosmotheism,’ rendered different cultures mutually transparent and compatible, the new counter-religion [Yahwism] blocked intercultural translatability.” And when Yahweh directed his people, “You will make no pact with them or with their gods” (Exodus 23:32), or “Do not utter the names of their gods, do not swear by them, do not serve them and do not bow down to them” (Joshua 23:7), he was in effect preventing any relationship of trust and fairness with the neighboring peoples.

>> No.17117331 [View]
File: 25 KB, 333x499, Moses 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17117331

>>17117315
>Jews are a conspiracy theory
kek

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]