5 ms·

> Christianity, lest it be forgotten, is a metaphysical monism where it is the obligation of every Christian to love every aspect of creation This is fundament

by dvt 12y ago

> Christianity, lest it be forgotten, is a metaphysical monism where it is the obligation of every Christian to love every aspect of creation This is fundamentally incorrect. As far as Judeo-Christian theology is concerned, there is a clear distinction between God and creation. Incidentally, this is also why Spinoza (a Sephardic Jew and monist) was excommunicated.

ThomPete 12y ago
What do you mean clear distinction?
- theophrastus 12y ago
  Monism is one philosophical end of a historically infamous set of beliefs declared as 'clearly distinct' Christian heresies for which people were executed in gruesome fashion. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    Still not sure I understand the "clearly distinct" in relation to what the OP objects against.
    - sp332 12y ago
      How about an example: God is perfect, but creation is not perfect. So you can love God without loving everything in creation.
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        But since god is the one who created then god isn't perfect after all.
        sp332 12y ago
        Oh that assumes a lot of things. Like that perfect beings never create non-perfect things, or that the created thing is even deterministic, or that a perfect thing can't become imperfect over time.
        icebraining 12y ago
        Isn't time part of the creation?
        ThomPete 12y ago
        No it only assumes that when you say perfect you mean perfect.
        sp332 12y ago
        I'm not trying to start an argument. Also this is a bad forum for debate.
        ThomPete 12y ago
        Me neither. Your "example" just isn't an example.
        sp332 12y ago
        Oh ok. How about: God is infinite and created things aren't. You can just love infinite things then?
        ThomPete 12y ago
        Again. This example only make sense if you exclude that god created it. So it doesn't help anything at all.
- gknoy 12y ago
  > to love every aspect of creation He means that Christianity canonically differentiates a Creator (God) and that which was created (universe, people, etc). So, this person or tree is not God, nor is it an aspect of God.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    Thats not what I read in that sentence at least. What I read is the act of _creating_ not _what_is_created_ But I could obviously be wrong.
  - forca 12y ago
    This. God transcends His creations as well as time (also a creation).
- dvt 12y ago
  Monism (or at lest the version of it Spinoza deals with) claims that creation is part of God. So monism says that (universe ∈ God). This is not, for the most part, what Christians philosophically believe. For example, evil, which is certainly a part of our universe is most definitely not a part of God; God is metaphysicsl whilst the universe is physical; the universe is temporal, God is not; etc. This is what I mean by there is a "clear distinction" between the two. Monism, by definition, argues that "everything is one".
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    Monism can also mean there is only one supreme being so its not as clear cut as one might think. Furthermore this is getting into some of the areas of theological not philosophical or logical interpretation. In order for any of what you say to make sense I have to buy the idea of god to begin with which I don't and even if I did it's quite obvious that the attempt to make the distinction isn't grounded in reasoning which is fine since it's religion.
    - dvt 12y ago
      Monism has a very well-defined meaning in philosophy. Monism does not mean "there is only one supreme being"; that's monotheism. Monism might imply monotheism, but I'd have to think about that as it doesn't seem trivial to conclude. The distinction is grounded in logic, per Spinoza (and later Leibnitz, who was also a monist and wrote the famous Monadology). I don't mean to sound dismissive, but it really sounds like you need to do some serious reading to gain some domain knowledge before jumping in this kind of discussion. You can start by looking at the SEP page: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        No monotheism means that you only believe in one god. I know very well what monism means so don't worry about how much I read on that account. Of course monism can mean there is only one supreme being if that supreme being is being said to be the creator of the world we exist in. It's just a matter of definition. And again the objection to the quote is the primary center for this discussion and in that context it's not clear exactly what is meant with creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

by dvt 12y ago

ThomPete 12y ago

What do you mean clear distinction?

theophrastus 12y ago
Monism is one philosophical end of a historically infamous set of beliefs declared as 'clearly distinct' Christian heresies for which people were executed in gruesome fashion. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Still not sure I understand the "clearly distinct" in relation to what the OP objects against.
  - sp332 12y ago
    How about an example: God is perfect, but creation is not perfect. So you can love God without loving everything in creation.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      But since god is the one who created then god isn't perfect after all.
      - sp332 12y ago
        Oh that assumes a lot of things. Like that perfect beings never create non-perfect things, or that the created thing is even deterministic, or that a perfect thing can't become imperfect over time.
        icebraining 12y ago
        Isn't time part of the creation?
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        No it only assumes that when you say perfect you mean perfect.
        sp332 12y ago
        I'm not trying to start an argument. Also this is a bad forum for debate.
        ThomPete 12y ago
        Me neither. Your "example" just isn't an example.
        sp332 12y ago
        Oh ok. How about: God is infinite and created things aren't. You can just love infinite things then?
        ThomPete 12y ago
        Again. This example only make sense if you exclude that god created it. So it doesn't help anything at all.
gknoy 12y ago
> to love every aspect of creation He means that Christianity canonically differentiates a Creator (God) and that which was created (universe, people, etc). So, this person or tree is not God, nor is it an aspect of God.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Thats not what I read in that sentence at least. What I read is the act of _creating_ not _what_is_created_ But I could obviously be wrong.
- forca 12y ago
  This. God transcends His creations as well as time (also a creation).
dvt 12y ago
Monism (or at lest the version of it Spinoza deals with) claims that creation is part of God. So monism says that (universe ∈ God). This is not, for the most part, what Christians philosophically believe. For example, evil, which is certainly a part of our universe is most definitely not a part of God; God is metaphysicsl whilst the universe is physical; the universe is temporal, God is not; etc. This is what I mean by there is a "clear distinction" between the two. Monism, by definition, argues that "everything is one".
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Monism can also mean there is only one supreme being so its not as clear cut as one might think. Furthermore this is getting into some of the areas of theological not philosophical or logical interpretation. In order for any of what you say to make sense I have to buy the idea of god to begin with which I don't and even if I did it's quite obvious that the attempt to make the distinction isn't grounded in reasoning which is fine since it's religion.
  - dvt 12y ago
    Monism has a very well-defined meaning in philosophy. Monism does not mean "there is only one supreme being"; that's monotheism. Monism might imply monotheism, but I'd have to think about that as it doesn't seem trivial to conclude. The distinction is grounded in logic, per Spinoza (and later Leibnitz, who was also a monist and wrote the famous Monadology). I don't mean to sound dismissive, but it really sounds like you need to do some serious reading to gain some domain knowledge before jumping in this kind of discussion. You can start by looking at the SEP page: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      No monotheism means that you only believe in one god. I know very well what monism means so don't worry about how much I read on that account. Of course monism can mean there is only one supreme being if that supreme being is being said to be the creator of the world we exist in. It's just a matter of definition. And again the objection to the quote is the primary center for this discussion and in that context it's not clear exactly what is meant with creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism