The Partial Exam of Life relies on your support to find out how to help in ways that are cheap or even free for you.

Please visit partialexaminalife.com slash support.

Hey, this is the Partial Exam of Life episode 166 Part 2, which is still talking about Spinoza's Traktatus Theological Politicus.

And last time we surprisingly jumped a lot to the second half of the reading and talked about the political stuff and about natural right and stuff.

So maybe now we should back up and look at chapter 12, which has a very long title.

On the true original text of the Divine Law and why holy scripture is so called and why it is the Word of God and a demonstration that insofar as it contains the Word of God has come down to us uncorrupted.

What's funny about those titles is they sound a lot more pious and straight edge religious and they turn out to be because it turns out that it isn't really the word of God except in this very general sense.

It's the word of God if you say of God means just like he defined it at the very beginning of the book like if you look how the ancient Israelites actually used of God they could just be talking about like anything that's awesome.

This is the sandwich of God man.

I always took it to be part of his rhetorical strategy to make a lot of room for religion until he makes it clear that religion and priests and religious figures really are part of the state.

We subject to the state as well as I should say subject to the state.

So so as far as the word of God definition that section three I think I might be worth reading since we haven't done much reading from the text.

But they that is my adversaries will insist that even though the divine law is written on our hearts the Bible is still the word of God and therefore we may not say that it is mutilated and corrupt anymore than we may say this of the word of God truly though I fear that they on the contrary try too hard to be pious they're converting religion into superstition indeed verge unfortunately on adoring images and pictures that is paper and ink as the word of God.

I know that I have said nothing unworthy of scripture or the word of God since I said nothing that I have not demonstrated to be true by the clearest reasoning.

I love that that's a great rhetorical flourish to say you guys are actually idolaters exactly by putting so much stake in the Bible and then I'll go on to say what the word of God means is just you know this universal divine law certain general principles that are there in scripture.

Not the text itself not every literal word there's lots of bogus stuff in there but there are general principles can be gotten out of it.

That are the word of God.

He's always skating this fine line in terms of how pious he's being and I think it's very easy to take some of his principles as many subsequent people did and and try to apply them more widely and say you know actually your tolerance should extend to atheists to or.

Why assume if you're going to say that some of this is metaphorical some of this is reflecting of the Dome of things that people believed in ancient society.

But why insist then that the main points the main historical points have been passed down intact.

Or as far as this idolatry thing I actually am in the book I wrote after I finished college I had a kind of a personal revelation in there.

The name of God itself just the act of being pious and using talking about Lordly things that itself is idolatrous you know in the same way that you could say I don't want to have pictures of God.

...