Notes by JBY:

1.  The text was taken (except as noted) from Book V.  
     Page Numbers given below refer this book. 
     The translation and commentary are by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (unless noted). 
     Rabbi Hirsch's commentaries are replete with Hebrew-language's insights. 
     For Bible-study, Strong, Gesenius, and BibleWorks are indispensable.  

2. Format for R. Hirsch's Translations: 

HirPsalm:92:7; pg.155.        Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

            A brutish man knoweth not,                        {translation from Jewish Publication Society, 1917 edition}
            Neither doth a fool understand this.
         A man bare of reason does not understand,    {translation by R. Hirsch}
      nor does a conceited fool comprehend this:  

           Followed by Rabbi Hirsch's commentary which I have abbreviated and heavily edited for          people who do not know Hebrew.

           R. Hirsch's translations vary from the JPS translations in his own inimitable style. 


3. Symbols:

"Striving - SG838"  =  Hebrew word translated - Strong and Gesenius Number, if given.
[Commentary by Rabbi Hirsch ],                     { ^ Numbers may also be found in BibleWorks.}
< Dr. A. Wolf's commentary from Book XXIII or Book XXII > 
{ Commentary by Joseph B. Yesselman } 

4. Three Stages in the Evolution of the Concept of G-D:
         I have made the following changes, throughout all my web pages (not consistently), in 
         the spellings of God to reflect, in my opinion, the three stages of this evolution: 
         1. god(s) — Polytheistic; Pagan, Idolatry, Myth. Einstein on these three stages—Paradigm Shifts.
         2. God— Monotheistic; Judaeo-Christian-Islamic, Anthropomorphic, Transcendent God.  
             Durant:637, Re-interpret all anthropomorphisms in accordance with TTP1:3:13—Schweizer:79, James Hall:21. 
         3. G-D or G-d— Monotheistic; Spinoza's Immanent, Indwelling G-D/Nature. 
             ^ spelling ^ not consistently.           Analogies, James Hall:51, Weinphal:49, Durant:636, Dawkins:307.
            'G-D', Being, and 'Nature' are interchangeable. Deus sive Natura. Term G-D.     Spinoza's Religion
            'G-d', being, and 'nature' are interchangeable. Mode. Spinoza's Pantheism. D2:Spinozistic Meaning
          I use the words 'G-D', 'Thou' - 'thee', 'Deus', and 'Nature' interchangeably.

The above stages show the constant evolution of Religion's hypotheses. G-D is a synthesis of god(s) and God. See Dialectics, and Theistic and Non-theistic world views synthesized. Overcome. Memes.
The evolving concept of God results in the re-interpretation of Holidays—Paradigm Shifts.  

From Mook and Vargish Inside Relativity; 0691025207; p. 22. 

Scientific {and Religious} models change or evolve with time. This corresponds to the fact that they are transitory in usefulness and prestige. The change is sometimes characterized by a minor modification of a preexisting model to widen its domain of validity; sometimes a model is substantially altered or even completely replaced. ... In general, the models used and taught most widely today are not those used in the remote past, and they probably will not continue to be used indefinitely into the future. But we do sometimes live with a plurality of working models in that older models (such as the geocentric {gods and God} models) may continue to be used within their limited domains, even after better models are available. Albert Einstein put it this way: "Every theory is killed sooner or later. . . . But if the theory has good in it, that good is embodied and continued in the next theory." We would add that sometimes the intellectually "killed" model {God} sustains a {un}limited prestige as it co-exists with the newer ideas.  

From Richard Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain 2003; 0618335404; p. 150. 

... modern theists might acknowledge that, when it come to Baal and the Golden Calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.  

Paradoxically, Spinoza's G-D has much in common with the Pagan gods. Spinoza treats all things as Holy and as organically interdependent (analogy); whereas the Pagan treats things as independent separates—standing alone. The cash value of Spinoza's hypothesis of 'G-D' is that it establishes the logic for the Golden Rule and it synthesizes theistic and non-theistic world views.  

Conjecture: Spinozism is Evolved Judaism; law libraries of the world merge into the Talmud.

5.  Make my following emendations throughtout the Work: 
          soul                   change to            mind, thought, or life. 
         
 
6.   Partake of the Work (and my comments) as you would a pomegranate—relish 
      the flesh and spit-out the pits—things out-of-date; things you disagree with; and 
      things incomprehensible.  

     The ideas that I express may not be explicit in Spinoza's Works or in Rabbi Hirsch's Works ,      but are (in my opinion) implicit in their general principles. 

7.  Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view is a transcendent, anthropomorphic {ascribing human form or        attributes to a thing or a being not human, as to a deity} God, which leads R. Hirsch to take man's       point-of-view of things. But if you re-interpret to an indwelling, immanent G-D, it gives the       same end results except when the former lapses into idolatry. The latter, immanent,      G-D, makes many scriptural passages literally true instead of allegorical (the representation of        spiritual, moral, or other abstract meanings through the actions of fictional characters that serve as symbols). 
    Get behind the anthropomorphisms and find Deus sive Natura  {Example+1+2.} 
      
     See Book XXI, Kenneth R. Miller "Finding Darwin's God".

8.  In studying Scripture always remember that the purpose of "Religion" is 
     to bring peace-of-mind; not teach philosophy, nor to make men learned.      TTP1:Prf:42

9. Definitions: 

Torah - The entire body of Jewish religious literature, law, and teaching       Britannica
             as contained chiefly in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. 
              {I use 'Torah' in the Spinozistic sense of what is sacred in 
              Scriptures, Talmud and what is implied in the posit of G-D. 
                 Ges:860; Strong:8451 (from yaw-raw' to teach); instruction,
              doctrine, law.}   

Talmud - The collection of Jewish law and tradition.                                 Talmud and Miracles 

Mishnah - The collection of oral laws compiled about A.D. 200 and forming the basic part
                 of the Talmud. 

Halakhah - the body of Jewish law, comprising the oral law as transcribed in the Talmud                   and subsequent legal codes and rabbinical decisions. 

Shulhan Arukh - an authoritative code of Jewish law and custom published in 1565. 

Religion is an hypothesis for peace-of-mind. See Mark Twain's "Little Story." 

Idolatry is taking the infinite as finite. 

Divine = G-D, Deus sive Natura.  Divine Law. 

{Very important for the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures are TTPI:I(15) and TTPI:CI(65).}

10.  Suggestion: 

Analyze (English, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) Scriptural
words carefully.    Use  Books  IV,  V, VI, and  IX.    Hermeneutika  is 
powerful—point  to  an English word in the King James version and 
its  Hebrew,  Greek or  Latin   word  and  Strong's   entry  are  given.          powerful.
For  English,  use [etymological] and thesaurus entries; I have found 
all of this to trigger many an insight. 

11.  Suggested Web Sites for Sacred Bible Texts:
       http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/index.htm 
       http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm 
     http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index 
       http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl 
     A CD of the Sacred Texts of all Faiths is available.
  
  

Preface

As I kept studying Spinoza, what Elwes thought happened to Spinoza,
happened to me. 

From "Elwes's Introduction to his Translations of Spinoza's Works".

[37] The biography of the philosopher supplies us in some 
sort  with  the  genesis  of his system. His youth had been 
passed  in  the study of Hebrew learning, of metaphysical 
speculations  on the nature of the Deity. He was then con- 
fronted  with the scientific aspect of the world as revealed 
by Descartes. At first the two visions seemed antagonistic, 
but,  as he gazed, their outlines blended and commingled,            synthesized
he  found  himself in the presence not of two, but of ONE; 
the universe unfolded itself to him as the necessary result 
of the Perfect and Eternal G-D.  

This "unfolding itself" was to me an infinite "organic interdependence of 
parts" which led directly to the "Golden Rule";  not out of altruism but of 
enlightened self-interest.   

Now, after some fifty-six years, I am still studying Spinoza and Scripture
and gaining ever-new insights.  

Study Spinoza's "A THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE" - especially 1:66 and Ch. 7.

Spinoza's Religion  

JBY Glossary definition is:  
Religion is an ever-evolving hypothesis designed (posited) 
to find PEACE-OF-MIND (PcM).    

From Glossary Note 1: The definitions as given in dictionaries are the everyday language     usages, and are generally synonyms or properties of the word—not the nature (cause)     thereof. Spinoza attempts to find the cause.
 From Ethics: Part III: Def. of the Emotions XX Explanation:178 
    "But my purpose is to explain, not the meaning of words, but the nature of things ."  

The following are the entries for 'religion' given in "Webster's Electronic Dictionary". I posit that the definitions given do not get at the principle need, principle craving, and principle cause for Religion, PEACE-OF-MIND, but merely give its properties. Properties merely show the ways people hope to find Peace-of-Mind (PcM); however momentarily. 

re-li-gion (ri lij'uhn) n.      {JBY comments.}

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when     considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional     and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.
    {Knowing, positing, the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and your place in it, help bring PcM.
      Devotional and ritual observances help reinforce your beliefs.
     A moral code, and laws, for the conduct of human affairs certainly bring PcM. Constitution.}

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of     persons or sects: the Christian religion. {If the tenets of the Religion are believed and observed,
     it helps bring PcM. Mark Twain's "Little Story"}

8. <get religion>. a. to become religious; acquire religious convictions. b. to resolve to mend     one's errant ways {in order to bring PcM}.

[1150-1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religio conscientiousness, piety = relig (are) to tie, fasten (re- RE - + ligare to bind, tie; cf. LIGAMENT) + -io - ION; cf. RELY]
                  {To re-bind a torn apart world brings PcM; by not bringing-on atomic warfare.}

From Parkinson's Introduction to Bk.XV:xx-xxii—Spinoza's Religion:
                                                    Moral Agency, Robinson3:189.  

[Parkinson:1]  Spinoza, for his part, would agree that there is a connection between religion and the concept of G-D {posit 1D6 = ONE}; however, he would deny that religion, in the genuine sense of the term, requires the concept of a personal God. Religion, as he understands it, is 'Whatever we desire {PcM} and do of which we are the {active} cause, in so far as we ... know G-D' {because it brings Peace of Mind.} (4P37n1). To grasp the full meaning of this, one must take account of the fact that there is for Spinoza a link {Letter:3724[7]} between one's knowledge of G-D and one's activity as a moral agent {to act as a part of an infinite organism so that, that organism can be healthier and you, as part of that organism, be healthier. Damasio—biological, Robinson3:15}. This link involves what is page xxi perhaps the key concept of Spinoza's moral philosophy, namely, the concept of freedom {the heart acts freely in accordance with its nature, the lung acts freely in accordance with its nature, for the health of the organism.}. By 'freedom', in the context of his moral philosophy, Spinoza does not mean the freedom to philosophise which he defended in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, nor does he mean what is commonly called the 'freedom of the will'. Spinoza was in fact a strict determinist; in his view, whatever happens must happen, and nothing can happen other than what does happen (1P33). A free agent, for him, is not someone whose actions are undetermined; a free agent is someone whose actions are self-determined, i.e. who is an {active} autonomous agent. The connection between such freedom and the knowledge of G-D is this: Spinoza argues that to be self-determined is not to be controlled by one's passions; one is self-determined when one's reason is in control. This means that one is free when one understands oneself and, in so doing, understands that 'God, or Nature' of which one is an {organic} part.  

[Parkinson:2]  Since G-D, by virtue of being self-caused, is self-determined, it is not surprising that Spinoza should say that G-D is a 'free cause' (1P17c2). The problem is, how anything other than G-D can be called free. Spinoza insists that each particular thing is determined by another (1P28); how, then, can there be any point in finite beings such as ourselves having freedom as a goal? The answer, stripped of Spinoza's technical terminology, is this: To be a rational agent is to understand; now, Spinoza argues that when we understand {Mock} something, we are not reacting to external stimuli. Rather, G-D is (as it were) thinking through us, or, as Spinoza says, G-D is 'explained through the nature of the human mind' (2P11c).  

[Parkinson:3]  Just how this is to be interpreted is a matter of controversy, but perhaps enough has been said to show, in general terms, how Spinoza's moral philosophy is related to his views about G-D. It has been seen that the free man, the man who is the master of his passions, is the man who has understanding, and that such understanding involves a knowledge of, and indeed in a sense is, the knowledge of the ultimate and self-explanatory being. We can now return to Spinoza's use of the term 'religion' to refer to the desires and actions which are caused by our knowledge of such a being {things that bring peace-of-mind.}. The question is, whether this is a proper use of the term 'religion' - a question the answer to which bears on the question whether Spinoza is entitled to call page xxii his self-caused Being by the name 'G-D'. Certainly, it is hard to see how Spinoza's concept of religion can have any place for the concept of worship, or of petitionary prayer. Some might argue, however, that these concepts are not necessary to religion. What is necessary, they would say, is the idea that human beings are part of an {organic} whole, and one which is, in some way, a rational {determined to exist} whole. If one views religion in this way, then there is a case for saying that Spinoza did hold religious views, and that he had a right to use the word 'G-D' in the way that he did {Religious language}. One may add that it is probably this aspect of his philosophy, and not (say) his technical views about substance or about knowledge, that has proved attractive to many who are not philosophers.  

[Parkinson:4]  What has just been said about Spinoza and religion provides an answer to another question raised earlier (p.xviii): namely, whether Spinoza is one of those who see science and religion as in conflict. The answer is that he would not recognise such a conflict - provided that 'religion' is taken in his sense of the term. We have seen that, for Spinoza, to speak of religion is to speak of those desires and actions that spring from a knowledge of G-D. Similarly, he would say that a scientific knowledge of the world depends in the last analysis on a knowledge of G-D, the ultimate explanation of all things. Spinoza would say, then, that in his sense of the term 'religion', there is no conflict between religion and science {Scientific Method}. However, he also believed that false views about G-D had been a major obstacle to understanding, and to those false views {God} he was firmly opposed.

G. H. R. PARKINSON
 

 

From Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.  [Accessed July 18, 2003].  

Salvation—Nature and significance:     ST:Wolfson:2:3113, Scr:Dijn'sSalvation, Nagel:274.

It could be argued reasonably that the primary purpose of all religions is to provide {hypothesize} salvation for their adherents, and the existence of many different religions {Spinoza's Religion} indicates that there is a great variety of opinion about what constitutes salvation and the means of achieving it— {peace-of-mind}. That the term salvation can be meaningfully used in connection with so many religions, however, shows that it distinguishes a notion common to men and women of a wide range of cultural traditions.

EB Salvation
[2]  The fundamental idea contained in the English word salvation, and the Latin salvatio and Greek soteria from which it derives, is that of saving or delivering from some dire situation {no atheists in a foxhole, religion}. The term soteriology {spiritual salvation, esp. by divine agency} denotes beliefs and doctrines concerning salvation in any specific religion, as well as the study of the subject. The idea of saving or delivering from some dire situation logically implies that mankind, as a whole or in part, is in such a situation. This premise, in turn, involves a series of related assumptions about human nature and destiny.

EB Salvation
[3] Salvation—Objects and goals: 

The creation myths of many religions express the beliefs that have been held concerning the original state of mankind in the divine ordering of the universe. Many of these myths envisage a kind of Golden Age at the beginning of the world, when the first human beings lived, serene and happy, untouched by disease, aging, or death and in harmony with a divine Creator. Myths {a traditional or legendary story, esp. one that involves gods and heroes and explains a cultural practice or natural object or phenomenon} of this kind usually involve the shattering of the ideal state by some mischance, with wickedness, disease, and death entering into the world as the result. The Adam and Eve myth is particularly notable for tracing the origin of death, the pain of childbirth, and the hard toil of agriculture, to man's disobedience of his maker. It expresses the belief that sin is the cause of evil in the world, and implies that salvation must come through man's repentance and God's forgiveness and restoration.

EB Salvation
[4]  In ancient Iran, a different cosmic situation was contemplated, one in which the world was seen as a battleground of two opposing forces: good and evil, light and darkness, life and death. In this cosmic struggle, mankind was inevitably involved, and the quality of human life was conditioned by this involvement. Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism, called upon men to align themselves with the good, personified in the god Ahura Mazda, because their ultimate salvation lay in the triumph of the cosmic principle of good over evil, personified in Ahriman. This salvation involved the restoration of all that had been corrupted or injured by Ahriman at the time of his final defeat and destruction. Thus the Zoroastrian concept of salvation was really a return to a Golden Age of the primordial perfection of all things, including man. Some ancient Christian theologians (e.g., Origen) also conceived of a final “restoration” in which even devils, as well as men, would be saved; this idea, called universalism, was condemned by the church as heresy.

EB Salvation
[5]  In those religions that regard man as essentially a psychophysical {the branch of psychology that deals with the relationships between physical stimuli and resulting sensations and mental states} organism (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Islam), salvation involves the restoration of both the body and soul. Such religions therefore teach doctrines of a resurrection of the dead body and its reunion with the soul, preparatory to ultimate salvation or damnation. In contrast, some religions have taught that the body is a corrupting substance in which the soul is imprisoned (e.g., Orphism, an ancient Greek mystical cult; Hinduism; and Manichaeism, an ancient dualistic religion of Iranian origin). In this dualistic view of human nature, salvation has meant essentially the emancipation of the soul from its physical prison or tomb and its return to its ethereal home. Such religions generally explain the incarceration of the soul in the body in terms that imply the intrinsic evil of physical matter. Where such views of human nature were held, salvation therefore meant the eternal beatitude of the disembodied soul.

EB Salvation
[6]  Christian soteriology {spiritual salvation, esp. by divine agency} contains a very complex eschatological {any system of religious doctrines concerning last or final matters, as death, judgment, or an afterlife} program (regarding the final end of man and the world), which includes the fate of both individual persons and the existing cosmic order. The return of Christ will be heralded by the destruction of the heaven and earth and the resurrection of the dead. The Last Judgment , which will then take place, will result in the eternal beatitude of the just, whose souls have been purified in purgatory {esp. in Roman Catholic belief) a place or state following death in which penitent souls are purified of venial sins or undergo the temporal punishment still remaining for forgiven mortal sins and thereby are made ready for heaven}, and the everlasting damnation of the wicked. The saved, reconstituted by the reunion of soul and body, will forever enjoy the Beatific Vision; the damned, similarly reconstituted, will suffer forever in hell, together with the devil and the fallen angels. Some schemes of eschatological imagery, used by both Christians and Jews, envisage the creation of a new heaven and earth, with a New Jerusalem at its centre.

EB Salvation
[7] Salvation—Means of achieving: 
 The above means "to be saved from frustration by the LOVE of G-D."  

The hope of salvation has naturally involved ideas about how it might be achieved. These ideas have varied according to the form of salvation envisaged; but the means employed can be divided into three significant categories: (1) the most primitive is based on belief in the efficacy of ritual magic—initiation ceremonies, such as those of the ancient mystery religions, afford notable examples; (2) salvation by self-effort, usually through the acquisition of esoteric {private; secret} knowledge, ascetic {a person who practices self-denial and self-mortification for religious reasons} discipline, or heroic death, has been variously promised in certain religions—Orphism, Hinduism, Islam, for example; and (3) salvation by divine aid, which has usually entailed the concept of a divine saviour who achieves what man cannot do for himself—as in Christianity, Judaism, Islam.

From Gerth and Mills's "From Max Weber"; Copyright 1946; Pages 272-3—On Salvation. 

The annunciation and the promise of religion have naturally been addressed to the masses of those who were in need of salvation. They and their interests have moved into the center of the professional organization for the 'cure of the soul,' which, indeed, only therewith originated. The typical service of magicians and priests becomes the determination of the factors to be blamed for suffering, that is, the confession of 'sins.' At first, these sins were offenses against ritual commandments. The page 273 magician and priest also give counsel for behavior fit to remove the suffering. The material and ideal interests of magicians and priests could thereby actually and increasingly enter the service of specifically plebeian {common} motives. A further step along this course was signified when, under the pressure of typical and ever-recurrent distress, the religiosity of a 'redeemer' evolved. This religiosity presupposed the myth of a savior, hence (at least relatively) of a rational view of the world. Again, suffering became the most important topic. The primitive mythology of nature frequently offered a point of departure for this religiosity. The spirits who governed the coming and going of vegetation and the paths of celestial bodies important for the seasons of the year became the preferred carriers of the myths of the suffering, dying, and resurrecting god to needful men. The resurrected god guaranteed the return of good fortune in this world or the security of happiness in the world beyond. Or, a popularized figure from heroic sagas—like Krishna in India—is embellished with the myths of childhood, love, and struggle; and such figures became the object of an ardent cult of the savior. Among people under political pressure, like the Israelites, the title of 'savior' (Moshuach name) was originally attached to the saviors from political distress, as transmitted by hero sagas (Gideon, Jephthah). The 'Messianic' promises were determined by these sagas. With this people, and in this clear-cut fashion only among them and under other very particular conditions, the suffering of a people's community, rather than the suffering of an individual, became the object of hope for religious salvation. The rule was that the savior bore an individual and universal character at the same time that he was ready to guarantee salvation for the individual and to every individual who would turn to him.

The figure of the savior has been of varying stamp. In the late form ul Zroastrianism with its numerous abstractions, a purely constructed figure assumed the role of the mediator and savior in the economy of salvation. The reverse has also occurred: a historical person, legitimized through miracles and visionary reappearances, ascends to the rank of savior. Purely historical factors have been decisive for the realization of thesevery different possibilities. Almost always, however, some kind of theodicy {a vindication of God's justice in tolerating the existence of evil} of suffering has originated from the hope for salvation.

From Herman De Dijn's Book III:238-239—On Salvation.

[Dijn:1]  Once we know the truth about Natura (Ethics I) and about ourselves as knowers (Ethics II), we can take the last step in our investigation, which is to determine what adequate knowledge—especially of G-D and of our relation to him—can achieve with respect to our happiness {better word is peace-of-mind}. This happiness, or "blessedness" consists "in the knowledge of G-D alone, by which we are led to do only those things which love and morality advise" (2P49:65n). Happiness, virtue, and freedom are the same: they ultimately consist in, or closely depend upon, intuitive knowledge. To clarify these connections, announced at the end of Ethics II, we must investigate the link between knowledge and the dynamic-affective element in man—the power of adequate knowledge in restraining the emotions. Indeed, the wretchedness of our condition consists in the hold upon us of certain negative emotions related to all sorts of illusions. In order to determine the power of adequate knowledge in restraining the emotions, it is necessary first to understand the nature and origin of the emotions (Ethics III); second, to come to an insight into the inevitable bondage of man, which reason cannot overcome easily (Ethics IV); and third, to show that a life of freedom, through intuitive knowledge, is not altogether impossible (Ethics V).

[Dijn:2]  The answer to the question of what adequate knowledge can achieve requires an investigation into a kind of power struggle in humans between "external" influences, which are expressed in the passions (passive emotions), and the "internal force," which takes the form of adequate thinking and "active" emotions. We return full circle here to the "ethical" problematic of the beginning of the Treatise. But this time we are in a position to develop this problematic together with the master or the philosopher, page 239 because we are ourselves in possession of the truth about nature and man: we have experienced the pleasures of adequate thinking, and we desire the true and the highest good. Spinoza's ethics (in the strict sense) requires, in a preliminary step, an understanding of man's actual essence as a power expressing itself in emotions and desires (Ethics III). The ethics falls into two parts. In Ethics IV Spinoza investigates the power struggle as it is lived by rational man—how rational man's ethical life is determined by the formation of the notions of what is really good and bad, of rational rules for the good life, and of the ideal of free man. At the same time it is shown that the desire of rational man, as determined by this ideal and these notions and rules, is nevertheless neither effective nor free. In Ethics V the conditions of real freedom are laid out (the remedies against the passions): they consist in intuitive knowledge and the active affects related to it. Here Spinoza shows how knowledge can constitute real happiness or blessedness, which is, at the same time, real virtue or power. This part contains Spinoza's alternative for the traditional religious doctrine of salvation. It provides the final answer to the questions about happiness posed at the beginning of the Treatise. 

From Clifford's The Ethics of Belief reprinted in Klemke, Philosophy, ISBN: 0312084781;
        pp. 66ff—{Credulity of belief in God}. 

page 70 The harm which is done by credulity {gullibility} in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false page 71 beliefs. Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me. Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other's mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant? Will he not learn to cry "Peace" to me, when there is no peace? By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbors ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

'To sum up: It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. {Hall—It strikes me that it might not be unreasonable to bear Clifford's ethics of beliefs in mind when one is deciding whether to take a leap of faith on matters  theological, as well.}

"But," says one, "I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments." Then he should have no time to believe.

TTP3:XII(61):172—  

"For  from  the  Bible  itself  we  learn,  without  the smallest
difficulty   or   ambiguity,  that  its  cardinal  precept  is:   To 
love  G-D  above  all  things,  and one's neighbour as one's 
self { the golden rule }.  This  cannot  be  a  spurious passage, 
nor due to a hasty and mistaken scribe, ..."  

{The  Sacred  parts of Scripture are the ethical and moral parts
which   demand  obedience  to  commandments—laws.   Other 
parts  may be rejected or interpreted allegorically. This demand 
of  obedience  is  the  same  as  required  by any governmental 
or military law. No explanation of  the  law or command is given; 
nor any philosophy expounded; just do it—or else.} 

The Hebrew Bible is the Jewish bible "Tanakh" (The Five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings)  as sectarianly translated and sectarianly interpreted by Jews.  {Anti-Semitism}  

The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible as sectarianly translated and sectarianly interpreted by Christians.  

From Lawrence Boadt's Reading the Old Testament; Paulist Press 1984; ISBN: 0809126311; 
The term "Old' Testament; Page 19.  

Throughout this book we refer to the Old Testament rather than to Tanakh or Hebrew Scriptures. The main reason is that for Christians this has been the traditional name used through the centuries, and in a beginning Introduction it would only confuse the reader to develop a new vocabulary. But there are other reasons why the phrase "Hebrew Scripture" does not fully express the Catholic viewpoint. First of all, the deuterocanonical books are not written in Hebrew nor are they part of the accepted Bible of Protestants and Jews, yet they are an essential part of the Catholic Scriptures. Second the idea of "Hebrew Scriptures" versus presumably, "Greek" Scripture suggest a strong division between them which is foreign to a Christian faith commitment to the continuity of both Testaments. "Testament" was the Latin word chosen to translate the biblical idea of "covenant." {Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided.} But, unfortunately, "testament" was also a word used in a person's will leaving his possessions and final words to his heirs, and so misses the living sense of a covenant as an agreement between two people or two parties. Because it is so tied to the idea of death and a final statement, "testament" makes the new covenant of Jesus seem even more "new" and different than it should.  

Jewish people in particular express some fears about the Christian use of "old" in the Old Testament—and with good reason in the light of history. Many times, Christians, in the name of the Gospel of Jesus, have labeled the Jews as rejected by God and part of an old and replaced religious faith, as people who refused to accept Christ and therefore have no place or rights in the Kingdom of God which now have been taken from them and offered to the Gentiles instead. This is based on an over-zealous {I think; ignorant, cowardly, or evil are more honest words.} stretching of the New Testament itself, and in practice has led not to Christian actions, {who then, Hottentots?} but to terrible injustice against Jews. This occurred throughout the Middle Ages, and even in our own time. Although Hitler was not Christain {?, in any event, he operated in a Christian culture.}, many of his supporters were, and kept silent {or helped} during his {My emphasis; this pronoun is an attempt to absolve the Christian Church.} genocide because of an anti-Semitism based on a belief that it was willed by God. In the light of all this, Christians must be very careful how they understand the Scripture.  {Forgive my bitterness; how can a Jew who lived through those times not be embittered. Applying Spinoza's Dictum is very difficult and I repeatedly fail to understand how the Holocaust could happen on such a scale, and I am left with no peace-of-mind which I must carry to my grave.}

From Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene; 0192860925; p. 270—Hebrew Bible.

p. 16 'Behold a virgin shall conceive. . . ' 

Several distressed correspondents have queried the mistranslation of 'young woman' into 'virgin' in the biblical prophecy, and have demanded a reply from me. Hurting religious sensibilities is a perilous business these days, so I had better oblige. Actually it is a pleasure, for scientists can't often get satisfyingly dusty in the library indulging in a real academic footnote. The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah {7:14} is (almah), which undisputedly means 'young woman', with no implication of virginity. If 'virgin' had been intended, (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word 'maiden' illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The 'mutation' occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered almah into (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said, 'Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (Authorized English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give 'young woman' in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave 'virgin' in Matthew, since there they are translating from his Greek. 

From Encyclopædia Judaica on a CD-Rom. [Accessed September 22, 2003]. 

NEW TESTAMENT, the Christian Holy Scriptures
(other than the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha). 

The name in Greek is the translation of the Hebrew words "Berit Hadashah" {new covenant} in Jeremiah 31:30: "Lo, the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah." Since Jeremiah states clearly that the "new covenant" will be made with Israel and Judah, and not with other nations, there is nothing in this passage at variance with the Jewish Holy Scriptures. The confrontation, however, of the New Testament with the Hebrew Bible—which the Christians refer to as the Old Testament—as two conflicting covenants, is already found in the Gospel of Luke (22:20) and in Paul's Epistles (e.g., I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6, 14).
 

Spinoza's G-D,  though simple, is a very abstract {A thought apart from           Posit: 1D6 = ONE
concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.} concept. 
If  it  is  anthropomorphized,  as in Scripture, it is easier to conceive 
and  then,  explain.  That  is  why,  in  the evolution of Religion, the            {A picture is worth
anthropomorphic  phase  came  first.   In the monotheistic religions,         a thousand abstractions}
they  both  end-up  with  the same conclusion—love your neighbor.  



I conjecture the reasons Spinoza continued to use the "language of           Spinoza's Meaning
religion", (G-D instead of Nature) are the following: 

The  term 'G-D' is justly retained because Spinoza attempts to
have it fulfill the same function as the traditional god (religion), 
which is, to bring Peace-of-Mind.                                                            Mark Twain

'G-D' adds importantly the ingredient of 'Peace-of-Mind' which
'Nature' does not.   
 
There is great "vested interest" in  the word "G-D"; it is associ-                  Isaac
ated, by many, with Peace-of-Mind.                                                      Bashevis Singer  

G-D is not lowered to Nature, but Nature is raised to G-D. 

The word "religion" as we use it does not exist in Biblical Hebrew.                   Torah  
They  looked  upon  the  Bible  as  we  do  our  Constitution,  and                Constitution 
took  it  as  a  given—a way of life.    The Hebrew Bible was their 
Constitution   and   Legislative   enactments;   Post-biblically,  the 
Talmud  was, and  is,  the  equivalent  of  a  modern  Law Library.          Din Medinah Din
When   modern   Hebrew  had  to  coin  a  word for "religion" they 
chose  the  word  (daht) whose root is "knowledge",  Strong:1847 
from 3045.  EL:[64]:xxxi. 

E4:(Prf:27):189—Good and Evil 

"As  for  the  terms good and bad, they indicate no positive                Good
quality  in  things  regarded  in  themselves, but are merely 
modes  of  thinking,   or  notions  which  we  form  from  the 
comparison  of  things  one  with  another.  Thus  one  and 
the  same   thing  can  be  at the same time good, bad, and 
indifferent. ...."   

Nevertheless,  though  this  be  so,  the  terms  should still              Nevertheless
be retained.   For,  inasmuch  as we desire to form an idea 
of  man  as  a type of human nature which we may hold in  
view {as a model}, it will be useful for us to retain the terms  
in question,  in  the  sense  I have  indicated  {subjectively, 
from the point-of-view of the species 'man'.  

When  a  little  fish  is eaten by a bigger fish, does not the little fish 
"think"   that's   bad   and   does   not  the  bigger fish  "think"  that's 
good (because each one seeks to preserve itself)?"  We say that is  
Nature; if  the  cycle stops, all life stops.  However, we are like that 
little fish—or, like that big fish; abused or abuser. 

From Runes's Book XXV:iii - viii—Spinoza Dictionary
Spinoza: By Way of Introduction with Forward by Albert Einstein. 

[Runes:1]  It is with a certain amount of hesitance that I bring this small book before the general public. I had planned and prepared it, originally, for some of my friends who were desirous of becoming acquainted with the philosophy of our most well-known but least-read thinker. They, like many others, felt the spark that blinked through the massive, rigid structure of Spinoza's writings, but in spite of the serious efforts of many of them, they did not feel that they had succeeded in breaking through the terminological walls of the philosopher.

[Runes:2]  As a writer, Spinoza is a difficult man to comprehend. He set down his sentences cagily, in a circumscribed manner, and hintfully, sometimes allegorically, sometimes mockingly, often with tongue in cheek, and where permissible, with majestic grace and finality. Unlike other cardinal thinkers, he had no gift for word creation. There are so many new concepts in his metaphysical web, but hardly a single new term or word. He borrowed his words from the Atomists of ancient Greece, the Stoics, the scholastic  theologians, as well as from his Hebrew predecessors: Maimonides, Averroes, Crescas, and of course, the Frenchman Descartes.

[Runes:3]  This policy of word borrowing is quite confounding to the novice in the study of Spinoza, and it has confused even experienced students of philosophy, so much more so as our author felt obliged to adopt for his dissertations the then modish manner of writing more geometrico. One must bear in mind when reading Spinoza that he was a much watched man in a very watchful time. Some of his close friends were put to severe physical torture by the Dutch page iv authorities. Our author had only one of his works published during his lifetime, although a number of them were ready for publication for many years. In some manner, however, Spinoza and the other thoughtful men of his time managed to put ideas and hand-copied manuscripts into circulation by way of a considerable underground machinery. Many important books of that time were known to hundreds of men before they received the public impress of printer's ink.

[Runes:4]  It is obvious that since such conditions prevailed even in comparatively enlightened seventeenth century Holland, Spinoza put down many of his ideas sub rosa {confidentially; secretly; privately}.

[Runes:5]  As if these obstacles were not enough, we face, in the study of Spinoza, another, his quarrels with the Jewish community.

[ Runes:6]  Spinoza, who died at the early age of forty-five, was a descendant of rather poor Portuguese exiles, who had escaped the zealots of the Catholic Iberian Peninsula gone berserk with pillaging, expulsion, torture and auto da fé {the burning of heretics at the stake}. Some of those who escaped the most ungracious interpreters of Christian grace found asylum in Holland, which was then seething with Socinians {any follower of Faustus and Laelius Socinus, who rejected the divinity of Christ, original sin, etc.}, Mennonites, Puritans and other seekers of a Christian life that would no longer make a cruel mockery of the tenets of the Lord.

[Runes:7]  The Jews in Holland and the other countries of Western Europe lived in daily terror of their unfathomable Christian neighbors who, at the drop of some vile man's ugly word, would throw them [the Jews] into torturous dungeons or tie them to a spit and burn alive whimpering humans as you might roast a pig. And from the East of Europe came equally horrifying news of hordes of Cossack troops invading the defenseless ghettos of Poland, massacring the "pagan" Jews—men, women and children—upon the open invitation and with the fatherly blessings of the Russian Czar, the devout head of the Orthodox Church of the Christian Slavs.
page v
[Runes:8]  In those fearful days we find Baruch Spinoza, a Talmudic student in Amsterdam. There is actually little known as to how and why and when young Spinoza became involved in the activities of Socinians and other church groups of that city. But involved he became, and, after he had deserted his Jewish school (later, after the death of his father, even the Synagogue) it became known around town that the youth was doing considerable preaching of some peculiar text. The Jews of seventeenth century Amsterdam, as well as all the Jews of the Diaspora, had become accustomed to men and women who preferred the comparative safety of a superficially adopted dominant faith to living dangerously as a Jew in a Christian world. The Jews would cross those persons off their books, interpreting such reneging as purification of their community from the weaklings and opportunists.

[Runes:9]  But Spinoza, following in some way in the footsteps of that renegade, Uriel da Costa, was not and did not become a convert in the usual sense. Had he done so, the Jewish community would have treated him as it had all other run-aways—with indifference. But Spinoza remained a Jew, although he walked about propagating a threatening gospel, namely, that the Jewish Torah, the Book of Law {Din Medinah Din}, was written merely as a state law and was to be regarded only as such and nothing else, and inasmuch as the Jewish state had ceased to exist, the Jews of the world were no longer bound by the laws of the Torah. {This does not apply to the sacred parts of the Torah. The sacred parts are needed in all States now; and will still be needed in the to-be World State.} The Torah, in his opinion, was written, designed and meant for the physical comfort and security of the State of Israel {and all other States}, while, on the other hand, the Christian Bible bears witness to G-D's revelation to Jesus Christ, Whose voice, therefore, was to be regarded as no more and no less than the voice of G-D Himself. Vox Christi est vox Dei.

[Runes:10]  What made Spinoza yearn for such distinction page vi between the Christian Bible and the Hebrew Bible we do not know—a distinction which would have been utterly alien to Jesus, who said: "I did not come to destroy the Torah, but to fulfill it. {Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."}.

[Runes:11]  However, Spinoza did no