What do you think?
Rate this book
鈥必池з勜� 賮賷 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 賵 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞: 亘丕乇賵禺 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕鈥�
D鈥檃bord paru sous le couvert de l鈥檃nonymat en 1670, le Trait茅 th茅ologico-politique fut rapidement attribu茅 脿 Spinoza et imm茅diatement quali铿伱� d鈥櫯搖vre impie par les autorit茅s politiques et religieuses de son temps. C鈥檈st que, bien qu鈥檌l se d茅fende de l鈥檃ccusation d鈥檃th茅isme port茅e 脿 son encontre, le philosophe ne m茅nage pas l鈥櫭塯lise, il remet en question de nombreux dogmes religieux et d茅nonce la th猫se d鈥檜n auteur unique et inspir茅 par Dieu 鈥� en la personne de Mo茂se 鈥� pour les cinq livres de l鈥橝ncien Testament constituant la Torah des Juifs. Bousculant les bien-pensants de son temps, il d茅fend avec ardeur la libert茅 de s鈥檈xprimer et l鈥檈xercice de la raison dans l鈥檃nalyse des fondements th茅ologiques et politiques de la soci茅t茅. Ainsi, ce trait茅 de philosophie pratique a-t-il jet茅 les bases de nos d茅mocraties modernes fond茅es sur la s茅paration des pouvoirs temporel et spirituel. Ses analyses, subversives et iconoclastes 脿 bien des 茅gards, ont contribu茅 脿 la lecture critique des Saintes 脡critures et ont inspir茅 de nombreux penseurs apr猫s lui. Aujour颅d鈥檋ui encore, la radicalit茅 de son propos et la r茅jouissante libert茅 de ton dont il use ne peuvent qu鈥檈nchanter le lecteur moderne et l鈥檌nciter 脿 retourner aux sources de ce texte philosophique et politique majeur de l鈥橭ccident.
Nous le pr茅sentons ici, pour la premi猫re fois, dans une 茅dition confortable 脿 la lecture, accessible 脿 tous et b茅n茅铿乧iant des apports les plus r茅cents de la philologie, sur la base de la traduction de r茅f茅rence d鈥櫭塵ile Saisset.
Nous le pr茅sentons ici, pour la premi猫re fois, dans une 茅dition confortable 脿 la lecture, accessible 脿 tous et b茅n茅铿乧iant des apports les plus r茅cents de la philologie, sur la base de la traduction de r茅f茅rence d鈥櫭塵ile Saisset.
457 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1670
335 people are currently reading
8,081 people want to read
About the author
Baruch Spinoza
977听books1,938听followersControversial pantheistic doctrine of Dutch philosopher and theologian Baruch Spinoza or Benedict advocated an intellectual love of God; people best know
Ethics
, his work of 1677.
People came considered this great rationalist of 17th century.
In his posthumous magnum opus, he opposed mind鈥揵ody dualism of Ren茅 Descartes and earned recognition of most important thinkers of west. This last indisputable Latin masterpiece, which Spinoza wrote, finally turns and entirely destroys the refined medieval conceptions.
After death of Baruch Spinoza, often Benedictus de Spinoza, people realized not fully his breadth and importance until many years. He laid the ground for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern Biblical criticism, including conceptions of the self and arguably the universe. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporaries, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
People came considered this great rationalist of 17th century.
In his posthumous magnum opus, he opposed mind鈥揵ody dualism of Ren茅 Descartes and earned recognition of most important thinkers of west. This last indisputable Latin masterpiece, which Spinoza wrote, finally turns and entirely destroys the refined medieval conceptions.
After death of Baruch Spinoza, often Benedictus de Spinoza, people realized not fully his breadth and importance until many years. He laid the ground for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern Biblical criticism, including conceptions of the self and arguably the universe. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporaries, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews
June 29, 2024
That's a critical analysis of biblical texts with all the respect, simplicity, and tolerance of a believer who uses his reason.
My God, this text is modern and glaringly topical!
Written in the 17th century, 130 years before the French Revolution, this work establishes sacred books as texts written by men for men of their time.
The author wanted to scrap the arguments and temporal gimmicks and keep God's original message. Moreover, his analysis of Hebrew society allowed him to see the best way to reconcile religion and power and religion and social peace.
Of course, the 17th-century style is not the easiest to read, but in our society where religion and law are opposed, a fascinating reflection will enrich those who wonder about this subject.
My God, this text is modern and glaringly topical!
Written in the 17th century, 130 years before the French Revolution, this work establishes sacred books as texts written by men for men of their time.
The author wanted to scrap the arguments and temporal gimmicks and keep God's original message. Moreover, his analysis of Hebrew society allowed him to see the best way to reconcile religion and power and religion and social peace.
Of course, the 17th-century style is not the easiest to read, but in our society where religion and law are opposed, a fascinating reflection will enrich those who wonder about this subject.
June 13, 2017
鈥庁堌池з嗁� 诏乇丕賳賯丿乇貙 倬蹖卮 丕夭 亘蹖丕賳 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 賱丕夭賲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘诏賵蹖賲 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵乇丿賽 <丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕> 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 趩丕倬 賲蹖卮賵丿貙 爻乇丕爻乇 鬲丨乇蹖賮 丕爻鬲貙 賱匕丕 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 賴蹖趩 丕毓鬲賲丕丿蹖 賳蹖爻鬲
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� <丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕> 讴鬲丕亘賽 "乇爻丕賱賴贁 丕賱賴蹖-爻蹖丕爻蹖" 乇丕 丿乇 爻丕賱賽 1663 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賳賵卮鬲貙 丕賲賾丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 丿乇 丕賲丕賳 賲丕賳丿賳 丕夭 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳賽 賲鬲毓氐亘 賵 賳丕丿丕賳貙 丿乇 爻丕賱賽 1670 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘丿賵賳賽 亘讴丕乇 亘乇丿賳賽 賳丕賲賽 禺賵蹖卮貙 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿
鈥庂矩� 丕夭 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 丕賳丿丕夭賴 丕蹖 丿乇 禺胤乇 亘賵丿 讴賴 丨鬲蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘卮 蹖毓賳蹖 "丕禺賱丕賯" 丿乇 夭賲丕賳賽 夭賳丿賴 亘賵丿賳卮 趩丕倬 賳卮丿 賵 丿乇 爻丕賱 1677 賵 倬爻 丕夭 賲乇诏卮 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿 賵 丌孬丕乇卮 丿乇 賴賱賳丿 鬲丨乇蹖賲 卮丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿蹖賳 賵 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 賵丕乇丿 爻蹖丕爻鬲 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 乇丕 亘賴 卮丿鬲 讴賵亘蹖丿賴 亘賵丿
鈥庁堌池з� 毓夭蹖夭賲貙 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘蹖丕賳 賳賲賵丿賴 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕丿蹖丕賳 亘丕蹖丿 倬丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿丕賳卮 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 禺丕乇噩 讴賳賳丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 賮賱爻賮赖 亘乇 禺賱丕賮賽 丿蹖賳 賵 賲匕賴亘 賴丿賮卮 賮賴賲賽 丨賯丕蹖賯賽 爻丕夭诏丕乇 亘丕 禺乇丿 賵 丿丕賳卮 丕爻鬲
鈥庁ж迟聚屬嗁堌藏� 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 丿蹖賳 賵 賲匕賴亘 亘賴 爻賵蹖賽 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 賵 禺乇丕賮丕鬲 乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賴蹖趩 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丕夭 爻賵蹖賽 禺丿丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳蹖丕賲丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 賲賯丿爻 爻丕禺鬲賴贁 丿爻鬲賽 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖卮 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 爻賵丿蹖 賳丿丕乇丿 亘賱讴賴 睾蹖乇 賯丕亘賱 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 賳蹖夭 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
鈥庁з� 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 賲毓噩夭賴 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 倬蹖丕賲亘乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 诏賮鬲賴 丕賳丿 丕夭 爻賵蹖 禺丿丕 丌賲丿賴 丕賳丿 丿乇賵睾 诏賮鬲賴 丕賳丿 賵 倬蹖丕賲亘乇丕賳 丿丕乇丕蹖 丿丕賳卮蹖 賲丕賮賵賯 亘卮乇 賳亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿
鈥庁ж迟聚屬嗁堌藏� 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賲賵乇丿賽 賵噩賵丿賽 禺丿丕 賳蹖夭 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 禺丿丕 賴賲丕賳 胤亘蹖毓鬲 丕爻鬲 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 氐賮丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 乇丕 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 賳丕賲乇卅蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 禺丿丕 賳爻亘鬲 丿賴蹖賲 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賳蹖丕夭蹖 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿 賮賵賯 胤亘蹖毓蹖 賵 賲賵賴賵賲 賳丿丕乇蹖賲
鈥庁з勜ㄘ� 亘賴 睾蹖乇 丕夭 賲爻丕卅賱 丿蹖賳蹖貙 丕賵 亘賴 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賳蹖夭 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丕氐賱 爻禺賳 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴: 卮讴賱賽 丌乇賲丕賳蹖賽 賴乇 丨讴賵賲鬲貙 賴賲丕賳 賲乇丿賲 爻丕賱丕乇蹖 賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿.. 丕诏乇 丿乇 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 賲乇丿賲爻丕賱丕乇蹖 噩丕 亘蹖丕賮鬲丿 賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丨丕讴賲 卮賵丿貙 丌賳诏丕賴 丕賲讴丕賳賽 爻賵 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 亘賴 丨丿丕賯賱 賲蹖乇爻丿... 丕賵 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳 賵丕乇丿 爻蹖丕爻鬲 卮賵賳丿貙 丌賳賴丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 胤賲毓 亘乇丕蹖 亘賴 賯丿乇鬲 乇爻蹖丿賳 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 賲蹖丿丕賳蹖賲 讴賴 賮爻丕丿賽 丕丿丕乇蹖 賵 讴丕乇蹖 賳蹖夭 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳賽 丌賳賴丕 乇賵丕噩 丿丕乇丿貙 賱匕丕 丿蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 爻蹖丕爻鬲 噩丿丕 讴乇丿 賵 趩賳丕賳趩賴 賯乇丕乇 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賲乇丿賲 賲匕賴亘蹖 乇丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴賳賳丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 鬲賲丕賲賽 賲乇丿賲 丿賳蹖丕 蹖讴 賲匕賴亘 賵 丌蹖蹖賳 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 賳賴 趩賳丿蹖賳 賵 趩賳丿 賲匕賴亘 賵 丿蹖賳賽 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳貙 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 丌爻蹖亘 噩丿蹖 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵丕乇丿 賲蹖讴賳丿
---------------------------------------------
鈥庁з呟屫堌ж辟� 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖 卮賲丕 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳賽 诏乇丕賲蹖貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
鈥庁� 乇蹖賵蹖賵賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 讴鬲丕亘 "丕禺賱丕賯" 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 丿蹖诏乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 賮賱爻賮蹖賽 夭賳丿賴 蹖丕丿 <丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕> 禺賵丕賴賲 賳賵卮鬲貙 鬲丕 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 丕爻蹖乇賽 丿乇賵睾賴丕蹖 讴孬蹖賮 賵 鬲丨乇蹖賮丕鬲賽 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳卮賵賳丿
鈥�<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� <丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕> 讴鬲丕亘賽 "乇爻丕賱賴贁 丕賱賴蹖-爻蹖丕爻蹖" 乇丕 丿乇 爻丕賱賽 1663 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賳賵卮鬲貙 丕賲賾丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 丿乇 丕賲丕賳 賲丕賳丿賳 丕夭 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳賽 賲鬲毓氐亘 賵 賳丕丿丕賳貙 丿乇 爻丕賱賽 1670 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘丿賵賳賽 亘讴丕乇 亘乇丿賳賽 賳丕賲賽 禺賵蹖卮貙 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿
鈥庂矩� 丕夭 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 丕賳丿丕夭賴 丕蹖 丿乇 禺胤乇 亘賵丿 讴賴 丨鬲蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘卮 蹖毓賳蹖 "丕禺賱丕賯" 丿乇 夭賲丕賳賽 夭賳丿賴 亘賵丿賳卮 趩丕倬 賳卮丿 賵 丿乇 爻丕賱 1677 賵 倬爻 丕夭 賲乇诏卮 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿 賵 丌孬丕乇卮 丿乇 賴賱賳丿 鬲丨乇蹖賲 卮丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿蹖賳 賵 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 賵丕乇丿 爻蹖丕爻鬲 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 乇丕 亘賴 卮丿鬲 讴賵亘蹖丿賴 亘賵丿
鈥庁堌池з� 毓夭蹖夭賲貙 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘蹖丕賳 賳賲賵丿賴 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕丿蹖丕賳 亘丕蹖丿 倬丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿丕賳卮 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 禺丕乇噩 讴賳賳丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 賮賱爻賮赖 亘乇 禺賱丕賮賽 丿蹖賳 賵 賲匕賴亘 賴丿賮卮 賮賴賲賽 丨賯丕蹖賯賽 爻丕夭诏丕乇 亘丕 禺乇丿 賵 丿丕賳卮 丕爻鬲
鈥庁ж迟聚屬嗁堌藏� 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 丿蹖賳 賵 賲匕賴亘 亘賴 爻賵蹖賽 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 賵 禺乇丕賮丕鬲 乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賴蹖趩 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丕夭 爻賵蹖賽 禺丿丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳蹖丕賲丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 賲賯丿爻 爻丕禺鬲賴贁 丿爻鬲賽 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖卮 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 爻賵丿蹖 賳丿丕乇丿 亘賱讴賴 睾蹖乇 賯丕亘賱 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 賳蹖夭 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
鈥庁з� 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 賲毓噩夭賴 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 倬蹖丕賲亘乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 诏賮鬲賴 丕賳丿 丕夭 爻賵蹖 禺丿丕 丌賲丿賴 丕賳丿 丿乇賵睾 诏賮鬲賴 丕賳丿 賵 倬蹖丕賲亘乇丕賳 丿丕乇丕蹖 丿丕賳卮蹖 賲丕賮賵賯 亘卮乇 賳亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿
鈥庁ж迟聚屬嗁堌藏� 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賲賵乇丿賽 賵噩賵丿賽 禺丿丕 賳蹖夭 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 禺丿丕 賴賲丕賳 胤亘蹖毓鬲 丕爻鬲 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 氐賮丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 乇丕 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 賳丕賲乇卅蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 禺丿丕 賳爻亘鬲 丿賴蹖賲 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賳蹖丕夭蹖 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿 賮賵賯 胤亘蹖毓蹖 賵 賲賵賴賵賲 賳丿丕乇蹖賲
鈥庁з勜ㄘ� 亘賴 睾蹖乇 丕夭 賲爻丕卅賱 丿蹖賳蹖貙 丕賵 亘賴 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賳蹖夭 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丕氐賱 爻禺賳 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴: 卮讴賱賽 丌乇賲丕賳蹖賽 賴乇 丨讴賵賲鬲貙 賴賲丕賳 賲乇丿賲 爻丕賱丕乇蹖 賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿.. 丕诏乇 丿乇 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 賲乇丿賲爻丕賱丕乇蹖 噩丕 亘蹖丕賮鬲丿 賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丨丕讴賲 卮賵丿貙 丌賳诏丕賴 丕賲讴丕賳賽 爻賵 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 亘賴 丨丿丕賯賱 賲蹖乇爻丿... 丕賵 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳 賵丕乇丿 爻蹖丕爻鬲 卮賵賳丿貙 丌賳賴丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 胤賲毓 亘乇丕蹖 亘賴 賯丿乇鬲 乇爻蹖丿賳 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 賲蹖丿丕賳蹖賲 讴賴 賮爻丕丿賽 丕丿丕乇蹖 賵 讴丕乇蹖 賳蹖夭 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳賽 丌賳賴丕 乇賵丕噩 丿丕乇丿貙 賱匕丕 丿蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 爻蹖丕爻鬲 噩丿丕 讴乇丿 賵 趩賳丕賳趩賴 賯乇丕乇 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賲乇丿賲 賲匕賴亘蹖 乇丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴賳賳丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 鬲賲丕賲賽 賲乇丿賲 丿賳蹖丕 蹖讴 賲匕賴亘 賵 丌蹖蹖賳 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 賳賴 趩賳丿蹖賳 賵 趩賳丿 賲匕賴亘 賵 丿蹖賳賽 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳貙 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 丌爻蹖亘 噩丿蹖 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵丕乇丿 賲蹖讴賳丿
---------------------------------------------
鈥庁з呟屫堌ж辟� 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖 卮賲丕 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳賽 诏乇丕賲蹖貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
鈥庁� 乇蹖賵蹖賵賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 讴鬲丕亘 "丕禺賱丕賯" 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 丿蹖诏乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 賮賱爻賮蹖賽 夭賳丿賴 蹖丕丿 <丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕> 禺賵丕賴賲 賳賵卮鬲貙 鬲丕 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 丕爻蹖乇賽 丿乇賵睾賴丕蹖 讴孬蹖賮 賵 鬲丨乇蹖賮丕鬲賽 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳卮賵賳丿
鈥�<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
June 7, 2022
"No book is ever free from faults..."
The Theological-Political Treatise provides an in-depth critique of the Old and New Testament along with how religion and the various system of governments have worked and function alongside each other.
I found Baruch Spinoza's (1632-1677) scrutiny of the Scriptures quite persuasive and brave for the time and setting in which they were written. Spinoza formulates bold arguments, such as, that it was a single historian Ezra who wrote the Torah and that faith is merely based on history and language derived from scriptures and revelations. Spinoza argues that the Prophets derived their claims from their vivid imagination, human's lowest level of cognitive development, and not reasoning, man's greatest cognitive gift. Spinoza contends that the human's power of reasoning is superior to any theological work: "The domain of reason, as we have said, is truth and wisdom, the domain of theology is piety and obedience". He equates God to nature as he sees the processes of nature and God as one, yet, "nobody knows by nature that he has any duty to obey God".
This was a captivating read. I enjoyed Spinoza's interpretation and examination of the Scripture language and his method of demonstrating how the various texts are contradicting and are opposed to reason or the laws of nature. Spinoza also elaborates on his support for a democratic secular state with each individual's right to freedom of expression. This edition comes with a well-written introduction (sometimes reading a great introduction to a non-fiction book feels like examining the topic of the book twice). All in all, I look forward to reading more from this Dutch (Jewish) philosopher.
The Theological-Political Treatise provides an in-depth critique of the Old and New Testament along with how religion and the various system of governments have worked and function alongside each other.
I found Baruch Spinoza's (1632-1677) scrutiny of the Scriptures quite persuasive and brave for the time and setting in which they were written. Spinoza formulates bold arguments, such as, that it was a single historian Ezra who wrote the Torah and that faith is merely based on history and language derived from scriptures and revelations. Spinoza argues that the Prophets derived their claims from their vivid imagination, human's lowest level of cognitive development, and not reasoning, man's greatest cognitive gift. Spinoza contends that the human's power of reasoning is superior to any theological work: "The domain of reason, as we have said, is truth and wisdom, the domain of theology is piety and obedience". He equates God to nature as he sees the processes of nature and God as one, yet, "nobody knows by nature that he has any duty to obey God".
This was a captivating read. I enjoyed Spinoza's interpretation and examination of the Scripture language and his method of demonstrating how the various texts are contradicting and are opposed to reason or the laws of nature. Spinoza also elaborates on his support for a democratic secular state with each individual's right to freedom of expression. This edition comes with a well-written introduction (sometimes reading a great introduction to a non-fiction book feels like examining the topic of the book twice). All in all, I look forward to reading more from this Dutch (Jewish) philosopher.
February 15, 2020
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賯乇兀鬲賴 賲乇丞 賵兀毓賷丿 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賰孬賷乇丕賸 賵廿賱賷賰賲 廿賯鬲亘丕爻 兀乇丕賴 賴賵 丕賱兀賴賲 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
October 3, 2018
丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌簇� 丕賵賱 亘賳蹖丕賳蹖 亘乇丕蹖 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴鬲亘 賲賯丿爻 賵 乇賵丕蹖丕鬲 賲匕賴亘蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 亘賳蹖丕賳 乇丕 禺賵丿 丕蹖賳 讴鬲亘 賵 乇賵丕蹖丕鬲 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 倬丕賮卮丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 氐丨鬲 讴鬲丕亘 賲賯丿爻 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 趩蹖夭蹖 噩夭 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿 丌賳 鬲讴蹖賴 讴乇丿.
爻倬爻 爻毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 毓亘乇蹖丕賳 丕夭 丌睾丕夭貙 亘賴 趩賳丿蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 賲賴賲 倬丕爻禺 丿賴丿貨 蹖讴 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕賳亘蹖丕 讴蹖爻鬲賳丿 賵 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屫簇з� 亘丕 亘賯蹖賴鈥屰� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 趩蹖爻鬲責 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 賲賳亘毓 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕賱賴丕賲丕鬲 倬蹖丕賲亘乇丕賳賴鈥屰� 丕賳亘蹖丕 賵 乇爻賵賱丕賳 賯賵賲 亘賳蹖鈥屫ж池必ж︑屬� 鬲禺蹖賱 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕 丕夭 毓賯賱 賳丕亘 丕賴賲蹖鬲 讴賲鈥屫臂� 丿丕乇丿.
爻倬爻 爻乇丕睾 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 讴賴 鬲丕 讴噩丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 毓賲賱 讴乇丿 賵 毓賲賱 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丕夭 趩賴 乇賵爻鬲責 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 丿賯蹖賯 賲鬲賵賳 賲匕賴亘蹖 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賵 賲爻蹖丨蹖丕賳貙 丿乇 丌禺乇 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 讴賴 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 丕氐賱蹖 鬲毓賱蹖賲丕鬲蹖 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎勨€屫з嗀� 讴賴 毓賯賱 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳 毓丕賲蹖 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 丿乇讴鈥屫簇з� 讴賳丿 賵 亘丿賵賳 賵噩賵丿 丿蹖賳 賴賲 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 丌賳 亘乇爻丿. 賲孬賱 毓丿丕賱鬲 賵 賳蹖讴蹖 亘賴 賴賲爻丕蹖賴.
賴賲蹖賳鈥屫� 亘丕 賯胤毓蹖鬲 丕毓賱丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丨賵夭賴鈥屰� 丿蹖賳 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 亘賴鈥屭┵勠� 丕夭 賴賲 噩丿丕爻鬲 賵 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇賳丿 亘賴鈥屫操堌� 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賱爻賮蹖 乇丕 亘賴 丿蹖賳 亘趩爻亘丕賳賳丿貙 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 丿蹖賳 賱胤賮蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 鬲亘丕賴蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇з嗁嗀�.
爻倬爻 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 毓賲賱 亘賴 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賳卮兀鬲 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 鬲丕 毓賯賱 賵 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 鬲丕賲 趩乇丕 讴賴 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 亘丕蹖丿 丕賮爻丕乇 丕賮讴丕乇 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘丿賴丿 讴賴 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丕賵 丕蹖賲丕賳 丿丕乇丿貨 倬爻 丕賵賱蹖賳 賯丿賲 丕蹖賲丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 丌賳 賮乇丿 賵 乇爻蹖丿賳 賵丨蹖 亘賴 丕賵爻鬲.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎� 丿蹖賳 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 賴乇 毓賯賱蹖 賲鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖賳 鬲毓丕賱蹖賲 亘賴 賳賮毓 亘卮乇蹖鬲鈥屫з嗀� 賵 毓賲賱 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賳蹖讴賵爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 毓蹖爻蹖 乇丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賲賵爻蹖 賵 丿蹖诏乇 丕賳亘蹖丕 亘賳蹖鈥屫ж池必ж︑屬� 賯亘賵賱 丿丕乇丿 (讴賴 丿賱蹖賱 丕氐賱蹖 丕蹖賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿卮 噩丿丕蹖蹖 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 毓蹖爻蹖 丕夭 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 噩賱賵鬲乇 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 賴賲 丕夭 囟乇賵乇蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 賵 賲賯鬲囟蹖丕鬲 夭賲丕賳 馗賴賵乇 毓蹖爻蹖 賳丕卮蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.)
丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 丿蹖賳 亘乇丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴鬲乇 亘賴 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 毓賯賱 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳賳丿 賵 乇丕賴 丿卮賵丕乇 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳 乇丕 倬蹖卮 亘诏蹖乇賳丿貙 讴賲讴 卮丕蹖丕賳蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲
爻倬爻 亘禺卮 夭蹖丕丿蹖 乇丕 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 亘賳蹖鈥屫ж池必ж︑屬� 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賲賳鈥屫呝勝� 丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖丕 爻乇夭賲蹖賳蹖 亘賴 丕爻賲 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 禺丿丕 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕蹖賳 賯賵賲 賵丕賯毓丕賸 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賴鈥屰� 禺丿丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丿蹖诏乇 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 丕蹖賳鈥屭嗁嗃屬嗃� 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘丕 夭亘丕賳蹖 鬲賳丿 禺胤 亘胤賱丕賳 亘乇 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇�.
丿乇 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 丌禺乇蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘賴 爻乇丕睾 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丿蹖賳 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 倬爻 丕夭 丌賳讴賴 丕毓賱丕賲 讴乇丿 賮賱爻賮赖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丕夭 丨賵夭賴鈥屰� 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 噩丿丕爻鬲貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 讴賴 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 丨賵夭賴鈥屰� 丿蹖賳 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賴賲 丕夭 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 噩丿丕 卮賵丿 賵 丨賯 賴賲賴鈥屭嗃屫� 丿乇 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 丨丕讴賲賴 亘丕卮丿 鬲丕 賯丿乇鬲 鬲氐賲蹖賲鈥屭屫臂屸€屬囏й� 丨蹖丕鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴卮賵乇 趩賳丿倬丕乇賴 賳卮賵丿 亘賴鈥屫蒂堌� 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕诏乇趩賴 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 爻賵丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 毓賱賲丕蹖 丿蹖賳蹖 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 丨丕讴賲 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 賳亘丕卮賳丿 丕賲丕 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 鬲賮爻蹖乇 丕賲賵乇 賲匕賴亘蹖 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賯丕賳賵賳鈥屭柏ж臂屸€屬囏й� 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 丌賳 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿貙 賯丿乇鬲賽 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 丌賳 讴卮賵乇 讴賲鈥屫辟嗂� 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 乇丕賴 亘乇丕蹖 爻賵丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賵 賯丿乇鬲鈥屫堐屰� 亘丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
丌賳诏丕賴 亘賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賳賵毓 丨讴賵賲鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 讴賴 亘賴 亘丕賵乇 丕賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲 (鬲毓乇蹖賮 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕 丿乇 乇爻丕賱賴鈥屰� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 賳丕鬲賲丕賲 賲丕賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 丕賲丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 丕氐賵賱 丕蹖賳鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇诏丕賴 丕賵 倬蹖 亘乇丿) 丕蹖賳 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 丕夭 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 讴賳賵賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 卮丕賴丿卮 賴爻鬲蹖賲 賵 亘賴 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲 鬲賳賴 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕爻鬲 賵 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 趩蹖夭 亘賴 賴賲鈥屫槽屫池� 丕賳亘賵賴賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丕賮乇丕丿賽 鬲讴蹖賳 鬲讴蹖賴 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 賴乇 蹖讴 鬲丕 噩丕蹖 賲賲讴賳 賴賵蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 丨賮馗 讴乇丿賴 賵 鬲丨鬲 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 毓賯賱丕賳蹖 丿乇 氐賱丨 賵 丕賲賳蹖鬲 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 亘賴 爻乇 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀�.
趩賳丿蹖賳 賮氐賱 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘爻蹖丕乇 乇賵卮賳诏乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 丨鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱蹖 毓賱丕賯賴鈥屫й� 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賵賱 亘丕乇賴丕 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 賲乇丿賲 賯丿乇鬲 賵 丨賯 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘賴 丨讴賵賲鬲鈥屬囏й屸€屫簇з� 賲賳鬲賯賱 讴乇丿賳丿 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賴乇 亘賴亘賵丿蹖 丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 蹖讴 讴卮賵乇 丕夭 丨賯 賵 賯丿乇鬲 丌賳 賲乇丿賲 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 馗乇賮蹖鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 毓賯賱丕賳蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 鬲丨鬲 爻賱胤賴鈥屰� 蹖讴 賮乇丿 蹖丕 趩賳丿蹖賳 賮乇丿 蹖丕 诏乇賵賴蹖 丕夭 丕賮乇丕丿 鬲賳 亘丿賴賳丿. 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 卮讴賱 蹖讴 丨讴賵賲鬲貙 賲毓賲賵賱丕 亘丕 賳丕亘賵丿蹖 蹖讴 讴卮賵乇 賴賲乇丕賴 賴爻鬲 賵 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 毓丕丿鬲 丿丕乇賳丿 丌夭丕丿 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳賳丿貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 丨讴賵賲鬲鈥屫簇з� 乇丕 蹖讴鈥屫簇ㄙ� 亘賴 蹖讴 倬丕丿卮丕賴 鬲賯丿蹖賲 讴賳賳丿 讴賴 亘乇毓讴爻 丕蹖賳 噩賲賱賴 賴賲 氐丕丿賯 丕爻鬲 賵 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賮賯胤 賴蹖丕賴賵蹖蹖 乇丕賴 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀ж操嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 毓賳賵丕賳 賵 賳賴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賵丕賯毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫簇з�.
爻倬爻 爻毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 毓亘乇蹖丕賳 丕夭 丌睾丕夭貙 亘賴 趩賳丿蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 賲賴賲 倬丕爻禺 丿賴丿貨 蹖讴 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕賳亘蹖丕 讴蹖爻鬲賳丿 賵 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屫簇з� 亘丕 亘賯蹖賴鈥屰� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 趩蹖爻鬲責 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 賲賳亘毓 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕賱賴丕賲丕鬲 倬蹖丕賲亘乇丕賳賴鈥屰� 丕賳亘蹖丕 賵 乇爻賵賱丕賳 賯賵賲 亘賳蹖鈥屫ж池必ж︑屬� 鬲禺蹖賱 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕 丕夭 毓賯賱 賳丕亘 丕賴賲蹖鬲 讴賲鈥屫臂� 丿丕乇丿.
爻倬爻 爻乇丕睾 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 讴賴 鬲丕 讴噩丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 毓賲賱 讴乇丿 賵 毓賲賱 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丕夭 趩賴 乇賵爻鬲責 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 丿賯蹖賯 賲鬲賵賳 賲匕賴亘蹖 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賵 賲爻蹖丨蹖丕賳貙 丿乇 丌禺乇 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 讴賴 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 丕氐賱蹖 鬲毓賱蹖賲丕鬲蹖 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎勨€屫з嗀� 讴賴 毓賯賱 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳 毓丕賲蹖 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 丿乇讴鈥屫簇з� 讴賳丿 賵 亘丿賵賳 賵噩賵丿 丿蹖賳 賴賲 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 丌賳 亘乇爻丿. 賲孬賱 毓丿丕賱鬲 賵 賳蹖讴蹖 亘賴 賴賲爻丕蹖賴.
賴賲蹖賳鈥屫� 亘丕 賯胤毓蹖鬲 丕毓賱丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丨賵夭賴鈥屰� 丿蹖賳 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 亘賴鈥屭┵勠� 丕夭 賴賲 噩丿丕爻鬲 賵 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇賳丿 亘賴鈥屫操堌� 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賱爻賮蹖 乇丕 亘賴 丿蹖賳 亘趩爻亘丕賳賳丿貙 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 丿蹖賳 賱胤賮蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 鬲亘丕賴蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇з嗁嗀�.
爻倬爻 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 毓賲賱 亘賴 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賳卮兀鬲 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 鬲丕 毓賯賱 賵 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 鬲丕賲 趩乇丕 讴賴 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 亘丕蹖丿 丕賮爻丕乇 丕賮讴丕乇 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘丿賴丿 讴賴 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丕賵 丕蹖賲丕賳 丿丕乇丿貨 倬爻 丕賵賱蹖賳 賯丿賲 丕蹖賲丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 丌賳 賮乇丿 賵 乇爻蹖丿賳 賵丨蹖 亘賴 丕賵爻鬲.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎� 丿蹖賳 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 賴乇 毓賯賱蹖 賲鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖賳 鬲毓丕賱蹖賲 亘賴 賳賮毓 亘卮乇蹖鬲鈥屫з嗀� 賵 毓賲賱 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賳蹖讴賵爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 毓蹖爻蹖 乇丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賲賵爻蹖 賵 丿蹖诏乇 丕賳亘蹖丕 亘賳蹖鈥屫ж池必ж︑屬� 賯亘賵賱 丿丕乇丿 (讴賴 丿賱蹖賱 丕氐賱蹖 丕蹖賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿卮 噩丿丕蹖蹖 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 毓蹖爻蹖 丕夭 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 噩賱賵鬲乇 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 賴賲 丕夭 囟乇賵乇蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 賵 賲賯鬲囟蹖丕鬲 夭賲丕賳 馗賴賵乇 毓蹖爻蹖 賳丕卮蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.)
丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 丿蹖賳 亘乇丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴鬲乇 亘賴 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 毓賯賱 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳賳丿 賵 乇丕賴 丿卮賵丕乇 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳 乇丕 倬蹖卮 亘诏蹖乇賳丿貙 讴賲讴 卮丕蹖丕賳蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲
爻倬爻 亘禺卮 夭蹖丕丿蹖 乇丕 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 亘賳蹖鈥屫ж池必ж︑屬� 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賲賳鈥屫呝勝� 丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖丕 爻乇夭賲蹖賳蹖 亘賴 丕爻賲 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 禺丿丕 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕蹖賳 賯賵賲 賵丕賯毓丕賸 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賴鈥屰� 禺丿丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丿蹖诏乇 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 丕蹖賳鈥屭嗁嗃屬嗃� 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘丕 夭亘丕賳蹖 鬲賳丿 禺胤 亘胤賱丕賳 亘乇 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇�.
丿乇 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 丌禺乇蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘賴 爻乇丕睾 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丿蹖賳 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 倬爻 丕夭 丌賳讴賴 丕毓賱丕賲 讴乇丿 賮賱爻賮赖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丕夭 丨賵夭賴鈥屰� 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 噩丿丕爻鬲貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 讴賴 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 丨賵夭賴鈥屰� 丿蹖賳 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賴賲 丕夭 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 噩丿丕 卮賵丿 賵 丨賯 賴賲賴鈥屭嗃屫� 丿乇 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 丨丕讴賲賴 亘丕卮丿 鬲丕 賯丿乇鬲 鬲氐賲蹖賲鈥屭屫臂屸€屬囏й� 丨蹖丕鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴卮賵乇 趩賳丿倬丕乇賴 賳卮賵丿 亘賴鈥屫蒂堌� 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕诏乇趩賴 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 爻賵丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 毓賱賲丕蹖 丿蹖賳蹖 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 丨丕讴賲 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 賳亘丕卮賳丿 丕賲丕 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 鬲賮爻蹖乇 丕賲賵乇 賲匕賴亘蹖 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賯丕賳賵賳鈥屭柏ж臂屸€屬囏й� 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 丌賳 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿貙 賯丿乇鬲賽 丨讴賵賲鬲賽 丌賳 讴卮賵乇 讴賲鈥屫辟嗂� 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 乇丕賴 亘乇丕蹖 爻賵丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賵 賯丿乇鬲鈥屫堐屰� 亘丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
丌賳诏丕賴 亘賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賳賵毓 丨讴賵賲鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 讴賴 亘賴 亘丕賵乇 丕賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲 (鬲毓乇蹖賮 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕 丿乇 乇爻丕賱賴鈥屰� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 賳丕鬲賲丕賲 賲丕賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 丕賲丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 丕氐賵賱 丕蹖賳鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇诏丕賴 丕賵 倬蹖 亘乇丿) 丕蹖賳 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 丕夭 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 讴賳賵賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 卮丕賴丿卮 賴爻鬲蹖賲 賵 亘賴 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲 鬲賳賴 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕爻鬲 賵 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 趩蹖夭 亘賴 賴賲鈥屫槽屫池� 丕賳亘賵賴賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丕賮乇丕丿賽 鬲讴蹖賳 鬲讴蹖賴 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 賴乇 蹖讴 鬲丕 噩丕蹖 賲賲讴賳 賴賵蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 丨賮馗 讴乇丿賴 賵 鬲丨鬲 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 毓賯賱丕賳蹖 丿乇 氐賱丨 賵 丕賲賳蹖鬲 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 亘賴 爻乇 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀�.
趩賳丿蹖賳 賮氐賱 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘爻蹖丕乇 乇賵卮賳诏乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 丨鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 丕賵賱蹖 毓賱丕賯賴鈥屫й� 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賵賱 亘丕乇賴丕 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 賲乇丿賲 賯丿乇鬲 賵 丨賯 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘賴 丨讴賵賲鬲鈥屬囏й屸€屫簇з� 賲賳鬲賯賱 讴乇丿賳丿 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賴乇 亘賴亘賵丿蹖 丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 蹖讴 讴卮賵乇 丕夭 丨賯 賵 賯丿乇鬲 丌賳 賲乇丿賲 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 馗乇賮蹖鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 毓賯賱丕賳蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 鬲丨鬲 爻賱胤賴鈥屰� 蹖讴 賮乇丿 蹖丕 趩賳丿蹖賳 賮乇丿 蹖丕 诏乇賵賴蹖 丕夭 丕賮乇丕丿 鬲賳 亘丿賴賳丿. 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 鬲丕讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 卮讴賱 蹖讴 丨讴賵賲鬲貙 賲毓賲賵賱丕 亘丕 賳丕亘賵丿蹖 蹖讴 讴卮賵乇 賴賲乇丕賴 賴爻鬲 賵 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 毓丕丿鬲 丿丕乇賳丿 丌夭丕丿 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳賳丿貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 丨讴賵賲鬲鈥屫簇з� 乇丕 蹖讴鈥屫簇ㄙ� 亘賴 蹖讴 倬丕丿卮丕賴 鬲賯丿蹖賲 讴賳賳丿 讴賴 亘乇毓讴爻 丕蹖賳 噩賲賱賴 賴賲 氐丕丿賯 丕爻鬲 賵 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賮賯胤 賴蹖丕賴賵蹖蹖 乇丕賴 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀ж操嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 毓賳賵丕賳 賵 賳賴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賵丕賯毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫簇з�.
July 14, 2021
Re-read in 2021: I upgraded it to 5 stars, since on re-reading the TPT it dawned on me how original Spinoza's project was at the time. A careful, methodological study of the Bible texts in order to learn the truth about the past, with the aim of pleading for religious tolerance. And both these objects in a time when religious wars were tearing apart Europe and Britain and when going against religious doctrines and dogma meant excommunication at best and death at worst.
This makes me appreciate this work more than I did before. An inspiration to us, moderns, who so easily fall back into our (relatively) comfortable positions and choose to keep quiet. Spinoza was definitely one of the most courageous and original philosophers I know of, and in all senses of the word 'good', a good human being.
----------------------------------------
This is an important book. Spinoza was the first thinker to submit the Old and New Testament to serious, systematic scrutiny. He did this, at first, anonymously, when the book was published in 1670 - later, it would become known that he was the writer of Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and he had to flee.
One of the main ideas of the Tractatus, is that philosophy and theology should be kept seperated. We should use philosophy to interpret scripture, because the aim of philosophy is to discover the truth (rationally) whereas the aim of theology is simple obedience.
So what are the results of Spinoza's systematic study of the Old and New Testaments? Miracles are logically impossible (in conjunction with Spinoza's own philosophy, that is), prophecy is just personal imagination and there is no 'end time'. One of the most important things Spinoza proves (convincingly, in my humble opinion), is the fact that the Bible is composed of texts written by many different authors, in many different times. An example: Spinoza views the Old Testament (specifically: the Torah) as a political constitution of the people of Israel. Therefore, it is not rational to apply these standards to 17th century Holland.
One of the end goals of Spinoza was to criticze the intolerant clergy of his time. This was the time when many groundbreaking books were put on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Inquisition and that many authors and publishers were actively persecuted and threatened. Spinoza hoped to prove with his bible studies that this intolerance cannot be justified on biblical grounds.
Besides his theological thoughts, Spinoza is also known for his political views. Like many social contract theorists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, among others), he looks for a solution to the problem of human interests. Monarchy tends to slide into tiranny, while aristocracy tends to slide into oligarchy. Spinoza is a staunch defender of democracy, albeit not in an Ancient Greece-like form, but in a representative form. One of his strongest arguments in favor of democracy is that the people and the government are near-identical. This leads to broad support for the state's power and therefore to peace.
For me, Spinoza deserves our respect, not for the fact that he fought against religious suppression and for democracy and peace (which are noble deeds, indeed), but for the fact that he sees rationalism as the solution to human strife. We should use our intellect to try to come closer to the truth, to guide our actions and to consider the best option for all parties involved. This idea - using reason to increase humanity, dignity and peace - is enough to make Spinoza one of the most enlightened thinkers, ever.
There is much else to tell about his theological and political views - the influences of contemporary Dutch society on his opinions, the events he witnessed, his personal story - but I think it suffices to note that this book is an important foundation for Englightenment thinking. Read this if you can!
This makes me appreciate this work more than I did before. An inspiration to us, moderns, who so easily fall back into our (relatively) comfortable positions and choose to keep quiet. Spinoza was definitely one of the most courageous and original philosophers I know of, and in all senses of the word 'good', a good human being.
----------------------------------------
This is an important book. Spinoza was the first thinker to submit the Old and New Testament to serious, systematic scrutiny. He did this, at first, anonymously, when the book was published in 1670 - later, it would become known that he was the writer of Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and he had to flee.
One of the main ideas of the Tractatus, is that philosophy and theology should be kept seperated. We should use philosophy to interpret scripture, because the aim of philosophy is to discover the truth (rationally) whereas the aim of theology is simple obedience.
So what are the results of Spinoza's systematic study of the Old and New Testaments? Miracles are logically impossible (in conjunction with Spinoza's own philosophy, that is), prophecy is just personal imagination and there is no 'end time'. One of the most important things Spinoza proves (convincingly, in my humble opinion), is the fact that the Bible is composed of texts written by many different authors, in many different times. An example: Spinoza views the Old Testament (specifically: the Torah) as a political constitution of the people of Israel. Therefore, it is not rational to apply these standards to 17th century Holland.
One of the end goals of Spinoza was to criticze the intolerant clergy of his time. This was the time when many groundbreaking books were put on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Inquisition and that many authors and publishers were actively persecuted and threatened. Spinoza hoped to prove with his bible studies that this intolerance cannot be justified on biblical grounds.
Besides his theological thoughts, Spinoza is also known for his political views. Like many social contract theorists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, among others), he looks for a solution to the problem of human interests. Monarchy tends to slide into tiranny, while aristocracy tends to slide into oligarchy. Spinoza is a staunch defender of democracy, albeit not in an Ancient Greece-like form, but in a representative form. One of his strongest arguments in favor of democracy is that the people and the government are near-identical. This leads to broad support for the state's power and therefore to peace.
For me, Spinoza deserves our respect, not for the fact that he fought against religious suppression and for democracy and peace (which are noble deeds, indeed), but for the fact that he sees rationalism as the solution to human strife. We should use our intellect to try to come closer to the truth, to guide our actions and to consider the best option for all parties involved. This idea - using reason to increase humanity, dignity and peace - is enough to make Spinoza one of the most enlightened thinkers, ever.
There is much else to tell about his theological and political views - the influences of contemporary Dutch society on his opinions, the events he witnessed, his personal story - but I think it suffices to note that this book is an important foundation for Englightenment thinking. Read this if you can!
June 20, 2013
賴匕丕 賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 .. 鬲乇噩賲賴 賱賱毓乇亘賷丞 丿. 丨爻賳 丨賳賮賷 貙 賱丕 兀毓賱賲 賴賱 賷賲賰賳 胤亘丕毓鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇丕賱丨丕賱賷 兀賲 賱丕
賰丕賳 賲賳 丨馗賷 兀賳 賵噩丿鬲 賳爻禺丞 賯丿賷賲丞 賲胤亘賵毓丞
賷爻毓丿賳賷 賲卮丕乇賰鬲賰賲 亘賳爻禺丞 丕賱 pdf :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
亘毓丿 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞
" 賷丕賱賱毓噩亘 ! 賱賯丿 兀氐亘丨鬲 丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵兀氐亘丨 丕賱丿賷賳 兀爻乇丕乇丕 賲賲鬲賳毓丞 貙 賵兀氐亘丨 兀氐丨丕亘 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱廿賱賴賷 賱丕 賷毓乇賮賵賳 廿賱丕 亘卮丿丞 丕丨鬲賯丕乇賴賲 賱賱毓賯賱 賵亘丨胤賴賲 賲賳 卮兀賳 丕賱匕賴賳 賵賳賮賵乇賴賲 賲賳賴 貙 賵賯賵賱賴賲 兀賳賴 賮丕爻丿 亘丕賱胤亘毓 . 賵丕賱丨賯 兀賳賴 賱賵 賰丕賳 賱丿賷賴賲 賯亘爻 胤賮賷賮 賮丨爻亘 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵乇 賱賲丕 鬲賮丕禺乇賵丕 亘亘賱丕賴鬲賴賲 貙 賵賱鬲毓賱賲賵丕 毓亘丕丿丞 丕賱賱賴 亘胤乇賷賯丞 兀丨賰賲 貙 賵賱賰爻亘賵丕 丕賱兀禺乇賷賳 亘丕賱丨亘 賱丕 亘丕賱丨賯丿 賰賲丕 賷賮賱賵賳 丕賱兀賳 貙 賵賱賲丕 賳丕氐亘賵丕 丕賱毓丿丕亍 賲賳 賷禺丕賱賮賵賳賴賲 賮賷 丕賱乇兀賷 貨 亘賱 賱兀卮賮賯賵丕 毓賱賷賴賲 貙 賴匕丕 賱賵 賰丕賳賵丕 丨乇賷氐賷賳 毓賱賶 禺賱丕氐 丕賱兀禺乇賷賳 貙 賱丕 毓賱賶 丨馗賴賲 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丿賳賷丕 "
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賴丿賮 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賱鬲賯賱賷賲 兀馗丕賮乇 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 貙 賵賷禺囟毓 丕賱丕爻丕胤賷乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賱兀丿賷丕賳 ( 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 鬲丨丿賷丿丕 賵丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 亘丿乇噩丞 兀賯賱 ) 賱鬲賲丨賷氐 丕賱毓賯賱 賵賱賱賳賯丿 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 貙 賵賱丕 賷賯亘賱 賲賳賴丕 廿賱丕 賲丕 賷鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱毓賯賱 丨鬲賶 賱賵 兀丿賶 匕賱賰 賱賴丿賲 丕賱兀爻爻 賵丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞 賱賱兀丿賷丕賳 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 貙 賷乇賮囟 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賯亘賵賱 兀賷 鬲賯丿賷爻 賱賲丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕賱毓賯賱 兀賵 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 .
賴賳丕賰 孬賱丕孬丞 賲賯丿賲丕鬲 賷乇鬲賰夭 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳賴噩 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱丿賷賰丕乇鬲賷 賮賷 亘丨孬 賯囟賷丞 丕賱丿賷賳 貙 兀賵賱丕 / 賴賵 賷丐賲賳 亘賭 ( 賵丨丿丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 ) 貙 賱丕 賷賮氐賱 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 賵亘賷賳 丕賱賱賴 丕賱禺丕賱賯 貨 亘賱 丕賱賱賴 賴賵 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱兀夭賱賷 丕賱賱丕賲鬲賳丕賴賷 貙 賵毓賱賷賴 賮廿賳 { 賰賱 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱賱賴 貙 賵賯丿乇丞 丕賱賱賴 賴賷 匕丕鬲賴丕 賯丿乇丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 .. 賵賱丕 鬲賳賮氐賱 廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱賱賴 毓賳 匕丕鬲賴 } 兀賷 兀賳 丕賱賱賴 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷乇賷丿 卮賷卅丕 廿賱丕 亘賲丕 賷鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱兀夭賱賷丞 賵丕賱乇丕爻禺丞 賱賱胤亘賷毓丞 .
廿匕賳 { 賱賲丕 賰丕賳 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴 睾賷乇 賲毓乇賵賮 亘匕丕鬲賴 貙 賮賲賳 丕賱賵丕噩亘 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩賴 賲賳 兀賮賰丕乇 鬲亘賱睾 賲賳 丕賱乇爻賵禺 賵丕賱孬亘丕鬲 丨丿丕 賱丕賷賲賰賳 賲毓賴 賵噩賵丿 兀賵 鬲氐賵乇 賵噩賵丿 賯賵丞 賯丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲睾賷賷乇賴丕 .. } 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮廿賳 丕賱賵丨賷 賵丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲毓胤賷賳丕 賷賯賷賳丕 亘賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴 貙 { 亘賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 賲賳 匕賱賰 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳卮賰 賮賷 賵噩賵丿賴 } 賱兀賳 丕賱卮賰 賮賷 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賷噩毓賱賳丕 賳卮賰 賮賷 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 ( 兀賷 丕賱賱賴 毓夭 賵噩賱 ) 貙 賵亘丕賱毓賰爻 賰賱賲丕 丕夭丿丕丿鬲 賲毓賮鬲賳丕 亘丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵丕夭丿丕丿 鬲氐賵乇賳丕 賵囟賵丨丕 賱賰賷賮賷丞 丕毓鬲賲丕丿賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 貙 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丨丿賵孬賴丕 胤亘賯丕 賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱兀夭賱賷丞 貨 丕夭丿丿賳丕 賲毓乇賮丞 亘丕賱賱賴 賵亘丕乇丕丿鬲賴 .
孬丕賳賷丕 / 賷丐賲賳 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 亘賯丿乇丞 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 毓夭 賵噩賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 ( 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 ) 貙 賵毓賱賷賴 賮廿賳 丕賱毓賯賱 亘兀賮賰丕乇賴 丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 賴賵 兀爻丕爻 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱賲氐丿乇 丕賱兀賲孬賱 賱賱賷賯賷賯賳 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 鬲兀鬲賷 賮賷 丕賱賲乇鬲亘丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 賱賲賳 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓賵賳 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 .
賵丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賳馗乇 賵丕賱鬲兀賲賱 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 貙 賱丕 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 貨 亘賱 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 丿賱賷賱丕 毓賱賶 兀賵丕賲乇 丕賱賱賴 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 貙 { 賮賲丕 鬲毓乇賮賴 亘丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賵丨丿賴丕 賵毓賱賶 丕賵丕賲乇賴 丕賱兀夭賱賷丞 } 賵丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱兀氐賱 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵賳賵丕賲賷爻賴丕 .
廿匕賳 賮丕賱毓賯賱 賱丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 賱賵丕爻胤丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱賱賴 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 毓賯賵賱 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 兀賯賱 卮兀丕 鬲賳賰乇 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賵鬲亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲 賵丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 睾賷乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賮賷 廿孬亘丕鬲 賵賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 毓夭 賵噩賱 .
孬丕賱孬丕 / 賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 兀賳 噩賵賴乇 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 ( 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳 賲氐丿乇賴 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 兀賵 丕賱賵丨賷 ) 賴賵 丨孬 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵鬲賵噩賷賴賴賲 賳丨賵 丕賱胤丕毓賵 貙 賵兀賳 賲睾夭賶 兀賷 丿賷賳 賴賵 丕賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱廿丨爻丕賳 鬲噩丕賴 丕賱兀禺乇賷賳 賵賱賷爻 丕賱廿毓鬲賯丕丿 亘兀爻乇丕乇 賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞 睾賷亘賷丞 { 賮丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賱丕 賷丿賷賳 丕賱噩賴賱 亘賱 丕賱毓氐賷丕賳 賵丨丿賴 .. } 貙 賵毓賱賷賴 賮廿賳 賲丕 賷噩亘 賯亘賵賱賴 賲賳 丕賱賵丨賷 賴賷 丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷賲 賵丕賱丿乇賵爻 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賵丨丿賴丕 貙 賵賴賷 賲卮鬲乇賰丞 亘賷賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賰賲丕 兀賳賴丕 賲鬲賮賯丞 賲毓 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 貙 兀賲丕 丕賱兀爻丕胤賷乇 賵丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賮賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲禺囟毓 賱賱賳賯丿 貙 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賯亘賵賱賴丕 廿賱丕 廿匕丕 廿鬲賮賯鬲 賲毓 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 ( 丕賱毓賯賱 )
賴匕賴 賴賷 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賳丿 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 貙 兀賲丕 鬲賮氐賷賱丕鬲 乇丐賷鬲賴 丨賵賱 丕賱賳亘賵丞 賵丕賱賵丨賷 賵丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賵乇丕丞 賮賴賷 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 賲賯丿賲丞 丿. 丨爻賳 丨賳賮賷 賵賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳賮爻賴 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賱丕爻鬲夭丕丿丞
鬲禺丕賱賮 兀賮賰丕乇 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱毓賯賷丿丞 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷丞 賱兀賳賴 兀賯丕賲 賲賳賴噩賴 毓賱賶 賳賯丿 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賰卮賮 鬲賳丕賯囟 賳氐賵氐 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 貙 賵廿賳賰丕乇 鬲賱賯賷 鬲賱丕賲賷匕 丕賱賲爻賷丨 賱賵丨賷 爻賲丕賵賷 貙 兀賲丕 丕賱賵丨賷 賮賷 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 賳氐丕 賲丨賮賵馗丕 賱賰賱丕賲 丕賱賱賴 賮賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲胤亘賷賯 賴匕丕 賱賲賳賴噩 毓賱賷賴 貙 賱賲 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 貙 賱兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賲賵噩賴 亘丕賱兀爻丕爻 賱賱兀賵乇賵亘賷賷賳 貙 毓賱賶 賱乇睾賲 賲賳 匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀賮賰丕乇 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲乇丕孬 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷 貙 禺丕氐丞 賵丨丿丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 毓賳丿 丕賱丨賱丕噩 賵亘毓囟 丕賱氐賵賮賷賷賳 貙 賵鬲賯丿賷爻 賯丿乇丞 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賳丿 廿亘賳 乇卮丿 貙 賵賰匕賱賰 亘毓囟 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲毓鬲夭賱丞 .
亘賯賷 兀賳 賳鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 貙 賵賴賵 賱丕 賷禺鬲賱賮 賰孬賷乇丕 毓賳 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱廿鬲賲丕毓賷 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賮賷 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷丞 亘丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 貙 賷毓夭夭 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賲賳 爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 亘卮賰賱 賲胤賱賯 貙 賵丕賱丨丕賰賲 賱丕 賷賱鬲夭賲 亘兀賷 賯丕賳賵賳 賱兀賳 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳賷賷賳 賮賵囟賵丕 賱賴 亘賲賵噩亘 毓賯丿 氐乇賷丨 兀賵 囟賲賳賷 賰賱 賯丿乇丞 賰丕賳鬲 賱丿賷賴賲 賱賱賲丨丕賮馗丞 毓賱賶 兀賳賮爻賴賲 貙 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 賱賴丕 丨賯 鬲丨丿賷丿 兀賷 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱丿賷賳 貙 賵賰匕賱賰 賱賴丕 丕賱丨賯 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賮賷 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱毓賯賷丿丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 .
賵賮賷 禺胤賵丞 兀禺賷乇丞 賱賴丿賲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 貙 賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 兀賳 丕賱賱賴 賷丨賰賲 丕賱亘卮乇 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞 賵丨丿賴丕 貙 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 乇噩丕賱 丕賱丿賷賳 貙 賵賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱兀禺賷乇賵賳 賱賲 賷毓丿 賱丿賷賴賲 丿賵乇 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賲丕丿丕賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賷賲賰賳 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賷賴 賵鬲賮爻賷乇賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 貙 兀賵 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 亘匕丕鬲賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 貙 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷 賮乇丿 兀賳 賷賮爻乇賴丕 賵賷賮賴賲賴丕 賵丨丿賴 .
賰匕賱賰 賮廿賳 賱賱賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賵丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞 { 賵丕賱賮鬲賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲孬丕乇 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賱丕 鬲丨丿孬 廿賱丕 毓賳丿 爻賳 賯賵賱賳賷賳 賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 丕賱賳馗乇 賵丕賱鬲兀賲賱 貙 賮鬲丿丕賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀乇丕亍 毓賱賶 兀賳賴丕 噩乇丕卅賲 貙 賵賷賯毓 兀氐丨丕亘賴丕 鬲丨鬲 胤丕卅賱丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘 .. 賵賱賵 賰丕賳 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱毓丕賲 賷賯囟賷 亘兀賳 丕賱兀賮毓丕賱 賵丨丿賴丕 賴賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲禺囟毓 賱賱賯丕賳賵賳 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱兀賯賵丕賱 賱丕 鬲禺囟毓 賲胤賱賯丕 賱賱毓賯丕亘 貨 賱賲丕 丕賲賰賳 賱賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賮鬲賳 兀賳 鬲鬲賲爻丨 亘丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 貙 賵賱賲丕 鬲丨賵賱鬲 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱乇兀賷 兀亘丿丕 廿賱賶 賮鬲賳 }
賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 丿乇噩丞 賰亘賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賱賲丨亘賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 賵賲賳 賷賯丿乇賵賳 賯賷賲丞 丕賱丨乇賷丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 貙 賱丕 鬲卮毓乇 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀賳賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 兀賵 兀賳賴 賰鬲亘 賮賷 賲賳鬲氐賮 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 .. 賰鬲丕亘 賱丕亘丿 賶兀賳 鬲賯乇兀賴 .
賰丕賳 賲賳 丨馗賷 兀賳 賵噩丿鬲 賳爻禺丞 賯丿賷賲丞 賲胤亘賵毓丞
賷爻毓丿賳賷 賲卮丕乇賰鬲賰賲 亘賳爻禺丞 丕賱 pdf :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
亘毓丿 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞
" 賷丕賱賱毓噩亘 ! 賱賯丿 兀氐亘丨鬲 丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵兀氐亘丨 丕賱丿賷賳 兀爻乇丕乇丕 賲賲鬲賳毓丞 貙 賵兀氐亘丨 兀氐丨丕亘 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱廿賱賴賷 賱丕 賷毓乇賮賵賳 廿賱丕 亘卮丿丞 丕丨鬲賯丕乇賴賲 賱賱毓賯賱 賵亘丨胤賴賲 賲賳 卮兀賳 丕賱匕賴賳 賵賳賮賵乇賴賲 賲賳賴 貙 賵賯賵賱賴賲 兀賳賴 賮丕爻丿 亘丕賱胤亘毓 . 賵丕賱丨賯 兀賳賴 賱賵 賰丕賳 賱丿賷賴賲 賯亘爻 胤賮賷賮 賮丨爻亘 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵乇 賱賲丕 鬲賮丕禺乇賵丕 亘亘賱丕賴鬲賴賲 貙 賵賱鬲毓賱賲賵丕 毓亘丕丿丞 丕賱賱賴 亘胤乇賷賯丞 兀丨賰賲 貙 賵賱賰爻亘賵丕 丕賱兀禺乇賷賳 亘丕賱丨亘 賱丕 亘丕賱丨賯丿 賰賲丕 賷賮賱賵賳 丕賱兀賳 貙 賵賱賲丕 賳丕氐亘賵丕 丕賱毓丿丕亍 賲賳 賷禺丕賱賮賵賳賴賲 賮賷 丕賱乇兀賷 貨 亘賱 賱兀卮賮賯賵丕 毓賱賷賴賲 貙 賴匕丕 賱賵 賰丕賳賵丕 丨乇賷氐賷賳 毓賱賶 禺賱丕氐 丕賱兀禺乇賷賳 貙 賱丕 毓賱賶 丨馗賴賲 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丿賳賷丕 "
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賴丿賮 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賱鬲賯賱賷賲 兀馗丕賮乇 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 貙 賵賷禺囟毓 丕賱丕爻丕胤賷乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賱兀丿賷丕賳 ( 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 鬲丨丿賷丿丕 賵丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 亘丿乇噩丞 兀賯賱 ) 賱鬲賲丨賷氐 丕賱毓賯賱 賵賱賱賳賯丿 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 貙 賵賱丕 賷賯亘賱 賲賳賴丕 廿賱丕 賲丕 賷鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱毓賯賱 丨鬲賶 賱賵 兀丿賶 匕賱賰 賱賴丿賲 丕賱兀爻爻 賵丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞 賱賱兀丿賷丕賳 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 貙 賷乇賮囟 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賯亘賵賱 兀賷 鬲賯丿賷爻 賱賲丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕賱毓賯賱 兀賵 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 .
賴賳丕賰 孬賱丕孬丞 賲賯丿賲丕鬲 賷乇鬲賰夭 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳賴噩 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱丿賷賰丕乇鬲賷 賮賷 亘丨孬 賯囟賷丞 丕賱丿賷賳 貙 兀賵賱丕 / 賴賵 賷丐賲賳 亘賭 ( 賵丨丿丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 ) 貙 賱丕 賷賮氐賱 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 賵亘賷賳 丕賱賱賴 丕賱禺丕賱賯 貨 亘賱 丕賱賱賴 賴賵 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱兀夭賱賷 丕賱賱丕賲鬲賳丕賴賷 貙 賵毓賱賷賴 賮廿賳 { 賰賱 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱賱賴 貙 賵賯丿乇丞 丕賱賱賴 賴賷 匕丕鬲賴丕 賯丿乇丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 .. 賵賱丕 鬲賳賮氐賱 廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱賱賴 毓賳 匕丕鬲賴 } 兀賷 兀賳 丕賱賱賴 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷乇賷丿 卮賷卅丕 廿賱丕 亘賲丕 賷鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱兀夭賱賷丞 賵丕賱乇丕爻禺丞 賱賱胤亘賷毓丞 .
廿匕賳 { 賱賲丕 賰丕賳 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴 睾賷乇 賲毓乇賵賮 亘匕丕鬲賴 貙 賮賲賳 丕賱賵丕噩亘 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩賴 賲賳 兀賮賰丕乇 鬲亘賱睾 賲賳 丕賱乇爻賵禺 賵丕賱孬亘丕鬲 丨丿丕 賱丕賷賲賰賳 賲毓賴 賵噩賵丿 兀賵 鬲氐賵乇 賵噩賵丿 賯賵丞 賯丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲睾賷賷乇賴丕 .. } 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮廿賳 丕賱賵丨賷 賵丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲毓胤賷賳丕 賷賯賷賳丕 亘賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴 貙 { 亘賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 賲賳 匕賱賰 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳卮賰 賮賷 賵噩賵丿賴 } 賱兀賳 丕賱卮賰 賮賷 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賷噩毓賱賳丕 賳卮賰 賮賷 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 ( 兀賷 丕賱賱賴 毓夭 賵噩賱 ) 貙 賵亘丕賱毓賰爻 賰賱賲丕 丕夭丿丕丿鬲 賲毓賮鬲賳丕 亘丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵丕夭丿丕丿 鬲氐賵乇賳丕 賵囟賵丨丕 賱賰賷賮賷丞 丕毓鬲賲丕丿賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 貙 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丨丿賵孬賴丕 胤亘賯丕 賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱兀夭賱賷丞 貨 丕夭丿丿賳丕 賲毓乇賮丞 亘丕賱賱賴 賵亘丕乇丕丿鬲賴 .
孬丕賳賷丕 / 賷丐賲賳 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 亘賯丿乇丞 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 毓夭 賵噩賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 ( 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 ) 貙 賵毓賱賷賴 賮廿賳 丕賱毓賯賱 亘兀賮賰丕乇賴 丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 賴賵 兀爻丕爻 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱賲氐丿乇 丕賱兀賲孬賱 賱賱賷賯賷賯賳 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 鬲兀鬲賷 賮賷 丕賱賲乇鬲亘丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 賱賲賳 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓賵賳 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 .
賵丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賳馗乇 賵丕賱鬲兀賲賱 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 貙 賱丕 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 貨 亘賱 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 丿賱賷賱丕 毓賱賶 兀賵丕賲乇 丕賱賱賴 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 貙 { 賮賲丕 鬲毓乇賮賴 亘丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賵丨丿賴丕 賵毓賱賶 丕賵丕賲乇賴 丕賱兀夭賱賷丞 } 賵丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱兀氐賱 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵賳賵丕賲賷爻賴丕 .
廿匕賳 賮丕賱毓賯賱 賱丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 賱賵丕爻胤丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱賱賴 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 毓賯賵賱 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 兀賯賱 卮兀丕 鬲賳賰乇 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賵鬲亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲 賵丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 睾賷乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賮賷 廿孬亘丕鬲 賵賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 毓夭 賵噩賱 .
孬丕賱孬丕 / 賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 兀賳 噩賵賴乇 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 ( 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳 賲氐丿乇賴 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 兀賵 丕賱賵丨賷 ) 賴賵 丨孬 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵鬲賵噩賷賴賴賲 賳丨賵 丕賱胤丕毓賵 貙 賵兀賳 賲睾夭賶 兀賷 丿賷賳 賴賵 丕賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱廿丨爻丕賳 鬲噩丕賴 丕賱兀禺乇賷賳 賵賱賷爻 丕賱廿毓鬲賯丕丿 亘兀爻乇丕乇 賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞 睾賷亘賷丞 { 賮丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賱丕 賷丿賷賳 丕賱噩賴賱 亘賱 丕賱毓氐賷丕賳 賵丨丿賴 .. } 貙 賵毓賱賷賴 賮廿賳 賲丕 賷噩亘 賯亘賵賱賴 賲賳 丕賱賵丨賷 賴賷 丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷賲 賵丕賱丿乇賵爻 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賵丨丿賴丕 貙 賵賴賷 賲卮鬲乇賰丞 亘賷賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賰賲丕 兀賳賴丕 賲鬲賮賯丞 賲毓 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 貙 兀賲丕 丕賱兀爻丕胤賷乇 賵丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賮賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲禺囟毓 賱賱賳賯丿 貙 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賯亘賵賱賴丕 廿賱丕 廿匕丕 廿鬲賮賯鬲 賲毓 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 ( 丕賱毓賯賱 )
賴匕賴 賴賷 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賳丿 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 貙 兀賲丕 鬲賮氐賷賱丕鬲 乇丐賷鬲賴 丨賵賱 丕賱賳亘賵丞 賵丕賱賵丨賷 賵丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賵乇丕丞 賮賴賷 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 賲賯丿賲丞 丿. 丨爻賳 丨賳賮賷 賵賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳賮爻賴 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賱丕爻鬲夭丕丿丞
鬲禺丕賱賮 兀賮賰丕乇 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱毓賯賷丿丞 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷丞 賱兀賳賴 兀賯丕賲 賲賳賴噩賴 毓賱賶 賳賯丿 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賰卮賮 鬲賳丕賯囟 賳氐賵氐 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 貙 賵廿賳賰丕乇 鬲賱賯賷 鬲賱丕賲賷匕 丕賱賲爻賷丨 賱賵丨賷 爻賲丕賵賷 貙 兀賲丕 丕賱賵丨賷 賮賷 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 賳氐丕 賲丨賮賵馗丕 賱賰賱丕賲 丕賱賱賴 賮賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲胤亘賷賯 賴匕丕 賱賲賳賴噩 毓賱賷賴 貙 賱賲 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 貙 賱兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賲賵噩賴 亘丕賱兀爻丕爻 賱賱兀賵乇賵亘賷賷賳 貙 毓賱賶 賱乇睾賲 賲賳 匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀賮賰丕乇 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲乇丕孬 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷 貙 禺丕氐丞 賵丨丿丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 毓賳丿 丕賱丨賱丕噩 賵亘毓囟 丕賱氐賵賮賷賷賳 貙 賵鬲賯丿賷爻 賯丿乇丞 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賳丿 廿亘賳 乇卮丿 貙 賵賰匕賱賰 亘毓囟 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲毓鬲夭賱丞 .
亘賯賷 兀賳 賳鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 貙 賵賴賵 賱丕 賷禺鬲賱賮 賰孬賷乇丕 毓賳 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱廿鬲賲丕毓賷 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賮賷 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷丞 亘丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 貙 賷毓夭夭 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賲賳 爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 亘卮賰賱 賲胤賱賯 貙 賵丕賱丨丕賰賲 賱丕 賷賱鬲夭賲 亘兀賷 賯丕賳賵賳 賱兀賳 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳賷賷賳 賮賵囟賵丕 賱賴 亘賲賵噩亘 毓賯丿 氐乇賷丨 兀賵 囟賲賳賷 賰賱 賯丿乇丞 賰丕賳鬲 賱丿賷賴賲 賱賱賲丨丕賮馗丞 毓賱賶 兀賳賮爻賴賲 貙 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 賱賴丕 丨賯 鬲丨丿賷丿 兀賷 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱丿賷賳 貙 賵賰匕賱賰 賱賴丕 丕賱丨賯 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賮賷 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱毓賯賷丿丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 .
賵賮賷 禺胤賵丞 兀禺賷乇丞 賱賴丿賲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 貙 賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 兀賳 丕賱賱賴 賷丨賰賲 丕賱亘卮乇 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞 賵丨丿賴丕 貙 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 乇噩丕賱 丕賱丿賷賳 貙 賵賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱兀禺賷乇賵賳 賱賲 賷毓丿 賱丿賷賴賲 丿賵乇 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賲丕丿丕賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賷賲賰賳 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賷賴 賵鬲賮爻賷乇賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 貙 兀賵 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 亘匕丕鬲賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 貙 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷 賮乇丿 兀賳 賷賮爻乇賴丕 賵賷賮賴賲賴丕 賵丨丿賴 .
賰匕賱賰 賮廿賳 賱賱賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賵丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞 { 賵丕賱賮鬲賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲孬丕乇 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賱丕 鬲丨丿孬 廿賱丕 毓賳丿 爻賳 賯賵賱賳賷賳 賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 丕賱賳馗乇 賵丕賱鬲兀賲賱 貙 賮鬲丿丕賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀乇丕亍 毓賱賶 兀賳賴丕 噩乇丕卅賲 貙 賵賷賯毓 兀氐丨丕亘賴丕 鬲丨鬲 胤丕卅賱丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘 .. 賵賱賵 賰丕賳 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱毓丕賲 賷賯囟賷 亘兀賳 丕賱兀賮毓丕賱 賵丨丿賴丕 賴賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲禺囟毓 賱賱賯丕賳賵賳 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱兀賯賵丕賱 賱丕 鬲禺囟毓 賲胤賱賯丕 賱賱毓賯丕亘 貨 賱賲丕 丕賲賰賳 賱賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賮鬲賳 兀賳 鬲鬲賲爻丨 亘丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 貙 賵賱賲丕 鬲丨賵賱鬲 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱乇兀賷 兀亘丿丕 廿賱賶 賮鬲賳 }
賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 丿乇噩丞 賰亘賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賱賲丨亘賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 賵賲賳 賷賯丿乇賵賳 賯賷賲丞 丕賱丨乇賷丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 貙 賱丕 鬲卮毓乇 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀賳賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 兀賵 兀賳賴 賰鬲亘 賮賷 賲賳鬲氐賮 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 .. 賰鬲丕亘 賱丕亘丿 賶兀賳 鬲賯乇兀賴 .
January 28, 2020
賷亘丨孬 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 亘賮乇賵毓賴 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞( 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷:"丕賱賱賴貙 丕賱賳亘賵丞貙 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳貙 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 賵 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺."貙 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿賷貙 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷貙 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷貙 賵 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷.) 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 亘賵丕爻胤丞 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷. "賷乇丕噩毓 丕賱賳氐 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱鬲乇丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賵兀丨丿丕孬賴 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞."
賰丕賳 丕賱亘丨孬 賮賷 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賴賵 丕賱睾乇囟 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賱賴 賰賲丕 賷匕賰乇 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕. 廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 賳賯丿賴 賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賷賴賵丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 兀賵 賳賯丿賴 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷 亘丕賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶.
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 賮賰乇賴 賵賮賱爻賮鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷.
賵賲賳 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱爻丕亘毓 廿賱賶 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬 毓卮乇 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 毓賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賷賯丿賲 賳賯丿 賱 丕賱賳氐 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷- 亘毓賳丕賷丞 亘 丿賱丕賱丞 丕賱兀賱賮丕馗 賵賴賵 賲賳賴噩 賲毓乇賵賮 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 毓賳丿 丕賱賲丨丿孬賷賳 賲賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵丕賱賲賮爻乇賷賷賳 賵毓賳丿 丕賱兀氐賵賱賷賷賳 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賵丕亍. " 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻 丕賱賲鬲毓丕乇賮 毓賱賷賴 兀賳賴 賷賳賯爻賲听丕賱賷 賯爻賲賷賳 毓賴丿 賯丿賷賲 賵毓賴丿 噩丿賷丿貨 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳丿乇噩 鬲丨鬲 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 鬲鬲囟賲賳 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 丕賱匕賷 兀亘乇賲賴 丕賱乇亘 賲毓 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 毓賱賶 噩亘賱 爻賷賳丕亍 ( 廿乇賲賷丕 31:31-34)貙 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳丿乇噩 鬲丨鬲 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱噩丿賷丿 鬲鬲囟賲賳 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱噩丿賷丿 賮賷 氐賵乇鬲賴 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞" 賵賷丨賯賯 丕爻倬賷賳賵丕夭 賮賷 氐丨丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賴賱 賴賳丕賰 賲丐賱賮 賵丕丨丿 兀賵 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲丐賱賮賷賳 賱賱兀爻賮丕乇 . 賵匕賱賰 亘丕爻鬲賳丕丿賴 毓賱賶 賲丕噩丕亍 賮賷賴丕 賲賳 賳亘賵丕鬲 兀賵 兀禺亘丕乇 賵乇賵丕賷丕鬲貙 賮亘毓囟賴丕 賰丕賳 賲賳丨賵賱 賵丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱丌禺乇 賲賵噩賵丿 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘 丿賵賳 丌禺乇 兀賵 賲賳 爻賮乇 丿賵賳 丌禺乇. 賰賲丕 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱賲氐丿乇賷 賱賱兀爻賮丕乇 . 賵賴賵 兀賷囟丕賸 賳賯丿 毓賱賲賷 賷丿乇爻 丕賱賳氐 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賰賲丕 鬲丿乇爻 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵賷丨丕賵賱 廿禺氐丕毓賴 賱賯賵丕毓丿 孬丕亘鬲賴貙 賵 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 賯賵丕賳賷賳 賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 賰賲丕 賷禺囟毓 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱毓賱賲賷.
"賯丿賲 賳賯丿丕賸 賲賳賴噩賷丕賸 賱賱賳氐 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷 丕賱匕賷 亘丿兀 賲賳匕 丕賱賳卮兀丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賱賱賲爻賷丨賷賾丞貙 賵丕爻鬲賲乇 禺賱丕賱 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賶."
賵賴賵 賷丐賰丿 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 亘丨孬賴 賵賳賯丿賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱賱賳氐 亘兀賳 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱兀乇亘毓丞 : 兀爻賮丕乇 丿丕賳賷丕賱 賵毓夭乇丕 賵丕爻鬲賷乇 賵賳丨賲賷丕 賯丿 賰鬲亘賴丕 賲丐乇禺 賵丕丨丿. 賵賱賷爻 賲賵爻賶 賲丐賱賮 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱禺賲爻丞 賵賱賷爻 賷卮賵毓 賲丐賱賮 爻賮乇賴. 亘賱 賷乇賶 廿爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 兀賳 賲丐乇禺丕賸 賵丕丨丿丕賸 賴賵 毓夭乇丕 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賰鬲亘 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱爻鬲丞 ( 锟斤拷賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱禺賲爻丞 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 爻賮乇 賷卮賵毓.) 賵爻賮乇 丕賱賯囟丕丞 賵爻賮乇 乇賵孬 賵爻賮乇賷 氐賲賵卅賷賱 賵爻賮乇 丕賱賲賱賵賰. 賵賱賰賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲丐乇禺 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 廿爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 噩賲毓 丕賱賳氐賵氐 賲賳 賲氐丕丿乇 賰孬賷乇丞 賵賱賲 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱鬲賵賮賷賯 亘賷賳賴丕貙 賵賲賳 孬賲 兀鬲鬲 賲囟胤乇亘丞 賲鬲毓丕乇囟丞.
賮賯丿 賱丨馗 賯丿賲丕亍 丕賱賳爻丕禺 賰孬賷乇丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賯乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲卮賰賵賰 賮賷賴丕貙 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱賲亘鬲賵乇丞 貙 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳賵丕 賲毓 匕賱賰 賯丿 鬲賳亘賴賵丕 廿賱賷賴丕 賰賱賴丕.
鬲賳丕賵賱 亘丕賱賳賯丿 賲匕賴亘 賵賲賳賴噩 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賵賳 賮賷 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賰丕賳 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賵賳 賷鬲亘毓賵賳 賲匕賴亘賸丕 丿賷賳賷丕賸 賲鬲卮丿丿丕賸 賮賷 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 卮乇賷毓丞 賲賵爻賶 賵丕賱爻賳賳 丕賱卮賮賴賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲賳亘胤賵賴丕. 賱賲 賷賰賳 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賵賳 賲爻鬲賳賷乇賷賳 賵賰丕賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賱賰賴賳丞 丕賱賲亘鬲丿毓賷賳 禺丿丕毓賴賲 賵匕賱賰 亘廿毓胤丕亍 賯乇丕乇丕鬲賴賲 爻賱胤丞 丕賱賳賯賱 賵丕賱兀孬乇. 兀匕賰乇 賲賳賴賲 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳貙 賵賴賵 兀賵賱 賲賳 丕丿毓賶 賲賳 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賷賳 亘賵噩賵亘 丕禺囟丕毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱毓賯賱. 賵賴賵 賲丕 賳賯丿賴 丕爻倬賷賳賵丕夭 賮賷 亘丨孬賴 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵亘卮丿丞.
廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 禺賱丕賮丕鬲賴賲 賵毓丿丕賵鬲賴賲 賲毓 丕賱氐丿賵賯賷賷賳 貙 賵睾賷乇賴賲 丨賵賱 卮乇賷毓丞 賲賵爻賶 賵丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 . 賴賳丕賰 亘毓囟 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 賮賷 鬲乇鬲賷亘 兀賵 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘賯丕賳賵賳賷丞 亘毓囟 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇.
賷爻鬲賳鬲噩 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 兀賳 丕賱兀賳丕噩賷賱 賵丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賲毓丕賸 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱賲鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲毓胤賷 毓賯賷丿丞 賲鬲噩丕賳爻丞貙 賵兀賳 爻賱胤丞 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲乇噩毓 廿賱賶 禺賷丕賱 丕賱賳亘賷 兀賵 廿賱賶 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丨賵丕乇賷 丕賱卮禺氐賷.
賷乇賶 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 "兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賱賲 賷賯丿賲 賲毓乇賮丞 亘丕賱賲丕賴賷丕鬲貙 賵兀賳賴 丕賯鬲氐乇 賮賯胤 毓賱賶 鬲賯丿賷賲 兀賵丕賲乇 賵賳賵丕賴賺 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賵賱兀賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賰匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賶 賲賳丕賴噩 毓賱賲賷賾丞貙 丨爻亘 乇丐丕賴貙 賵賱丕 廿賱賶 胤乇丕卅賯貙 賵賰賱 賲丕 賯丿賲賴 賱賷爻 廿賱丕 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 賷爻賴賱 廿丿乇丕賰賴丕 賱兀賷 賮乇丿. 兀賷 亘賲毓賳賶 賲丕貙 賵胤亘賯丕 賱賲丕 賷賱賮鬲 丕賱賷賴 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕: 賯賵丕毓丿 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞. 賰賲丕 賷丐賰丿 丕賳 睾乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賴賵 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱胤丕毓丞."
賵 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 兀賷囟丕 賮賷 亘丨孬賴貙 毓賲賱賷丞 鬲賵馗賷賮 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賳爻賯 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷 賳賮爻賴貙 賲賳 賲賵賯毓 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞貙 賵毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 亘丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賵 賰匕賱賰 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 "賷乇賰夭 毓賱賶 賲賮鬲乇賯 丕賱胤乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞." 賵賳丕賯卮 兀亘毓丕丿 賵乇賰丕卅夭 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵胤亘賷毓丞 丕賮乇丕夭丕鬲賴丕 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓賷丞 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴丕 亘爻丿丞 丕賱丨賰賲 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓.
亘賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱爻賷丕爻丞: 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 亘毓囟 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賲賳 丿賵賱丞 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賴丕.
毓乇囟 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱丨賰賲 毓賳丿 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 賰賲丕 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 兀賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賷賵賯乇丕胤賷丞. 賵丕爻鬲毓乇囟 賰賷賮 囟丕毓鬲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賷賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 亘爻亘亘 丕賲鬲賷丕夭丕鬲 胤亘賯丞 丕賱賰賴賳賵鬲. 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 鬲賲孬賱 賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱胤亘賯丞 禺胤賵乇丞 賰亘賷乇丞 毓賱賶 爻賱丕賲丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 丕匕 賷乇賶 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 亘囟乇賵乇丞 賮氐賱 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 毓賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 丨鬲賶 賱丕 賷禺賱胤 丕賱賳丕爻 亘賷賳 丕賱亘丿毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱丕賱賴賷丞 兀賵 亘賷賳 丕賱賮鬲賳 賵丕賱賲氐丕丿賲丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賮丕毓 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 賵亘賷賳 丕賱爻賱丕賲 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷 賮賷 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 賰賲丕 亘賷賳 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 亘丨孬賴 兀賳 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賲賰賮賵賱丞 賱賰賱 賮乇丿 賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丨乇丞貨 兀賷 賱丕 鬲賲孬賱 禺胤乇丕賸 毓賱賶 爻賱丕賲丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞貙 兀賷 兀賳 丕賱毓賯賱 兀賷囟丕 賴賵 兀爻丕爻 賰賱 賳馗丕賲 爻賷丕爻賷 鬲鬲亘毓賴 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 賴賵 賲賳 兀賳氐丕乇 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲丿賳賷-丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賲丿賳賷貙 賵賴賵 賯乇賷亘 噩丿丕賸 賲賳 賮賰乇 賵乇賵丨 賲賵賳鬲爻賰賷賵.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賱賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 乇賵丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻貨 鬲丕乇賷禺 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵賷賴賵匕丕 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓丕卮乇 廿賱賶 丕賱爻丕亘毓 賯亘賱 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿.
賰丕賳 丕賱亘丨孬 賮賷 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賴賵 丕賱睾乇囟 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賱賴 賰賲丕 賷匕賰乇 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕. 廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 賳賯丿賴 賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賷賴賵丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 兀賵 賳賯丿賴 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷 亘丕賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶.
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 賮賰乇賴 賵賮賱爻賮鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷.
賵賲賳 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱爻丕亘毓 廿賱賶 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬 毓卮乇 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 毓賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賷賯丿賲 賳賯丿 賱 丕賱賳氐 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷- 亘毓賳丕賷丞 亘 丿賱丕賱丞 丕賱兀賱賮丕馗 賵賴賵 賲賳賴噩 賲毓乇賵賮 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 毓賳丿 丕賱賲丨丿孬賷賳 賲賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵丕賱賲賮爻乇賷賷賳 賵毓賳丿 丕賱兀氐賵賱賷賷賳 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賵丕亍. " 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻 丕賱賲鬲毓丕乇賮 毓賱賷賴 兀賳賴 賷賳賯爻賲听丕賱賷 賯爻賲賷賳 毓賴丿 賯丿賷賲 賵毓賴丿 噩丿賷丿貨 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳丿乇噩 鬲丨鬲 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 鬲鬲囟賲賳 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 丕賱匕賷 兀亘乇賲賴 丕賱乇亘 賲毓 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 毓賱賶 噩亘賱 爻賷賳丕亍 ( 廿乇賲賷丕 31:31-34)貙 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳丿乇噩 鬲丨鬲 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱噩丿賷丿 鬲鬲囟賲賳 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱噩丿賷丿 賮賷 氐賵乇鬲賴 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞" 賵賷丨賯賯 丕爻倬賷賳賵丕夭 賮賷 氐丨丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賴賱 賴賳丕賰 賲丐賱賮 賵丕丨丿 兀賵 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲丐賱賮賷賳 賱賱兀爻賮丕乇 . 賵匕賱賰 亘丕爻鬲賳丕丿賴 毓賱賶 賲丕噩丕亍 賮賷賴丕 賲賳 賳亘賵丕鬲 兀賵 兀禺亘丕乇 賵乇賵丕賷丕鬲貙 賮亘毓囟賴丕 賰丕賳 賲賳丨賵賱 賵丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱丌禺乇 賲賵噩賵丿 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘 丿賵賳 丌禺乇 兀賵 賲賳 爻賮乇 丿賵賳 丌禺乇. 賰賲丕 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱賲氐丿乇賷 賱賱兀爻賮丕乇 . 賵賴賵 兀賷囟丕賸 賳賯丿 毓賱賲賷 賷丿乇爻 丕賱賳氐 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賰賲丕 鬲丿乇爻 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵賷丨丕賵賱 廿禺氐丕毓賴 賱賯賵丕毓丿 孬丕亘鬲賴貙 賵 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 賯賵丕賳賷賳 賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 賰賲丕 賷禺囟毓 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱毓賱賲賷.
"賯丿賲 賳賯丿丕賸 賲賳賴噩賷丕賸 賱賱賳氐 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷 丕賱匕賷 亘丿兀 賲賳匕 丕賱賳卮兀丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賱賱賲爻賷丨賷賾丞貙 賵丕爻鬲賲乇 禺賱丕賱 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賶."
賵賴賵 賷丐賰丿 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 亘丨孬賴 賵賳賯丿賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱賱賳氐 亘兀賳 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱兀乇亘毓丞 : 兀爻賮丕乇 丿丕賳賷丕賱 賵毓夭乇丕 賵丕爻鬲賷乇 賵賳丨賲賷丕 賯丿 賰鬲亘賴丕 賲丐乇禺 賵丕丨丿. 賵賱賷爻 賲賵爻賶 賲丐賱賮 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱禺賲爻丞 賵賱賷爻 賷卮賵毓 賲丐賱賮 爻賮乇賴. 亘賱 賷乇賶 廿爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 兀賳 賲丐乇禺丕賸 賵丕丨丿丕賸 賴賵 毓夭乇丕 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賰鬲亘 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱爻鬲丞 ( 锟斤拷賱兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱禺賲爻丞 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 爻賮乇 賷卮賵毓.) 賵爻賮乇 丕賱賯囟丕丞 賵爻賮乇 乇賵孬 賵爻賮乇賷 氐賲賵卅賷賱 賵爻賮乇 丕賱賲賱賵賰. 賵賱賰賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲丐乇禺 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 廿爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 噩賲毓 丕賱賳氐賵氐 賲賳 賲氐丕丿乇 賰孬賷乇丞 賵賱賲 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱鬲賵賮賷賯 亘賷賳賴丕貙 賵賲賳 孬賲 兀鬲鬲 賲囟胤乇亘丞 賲鬲毓丕乇囟丞.
賮賯丿 賱丨馗 賯丿賲丕亍 丕賱賳爻丕禺 賰孬賷乇丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賯乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲卮賰賵賰 賮賷賴丕貙 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱賲亘鬲賵乇丞 貙 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳賵丕 賲毓 匕賱賰 賯丿 鬲賳亘賴賵丕 廿賱賷賴丕 賰賱賴丕.
鬲賳丕賵賱 亘丕賱賳賯丿 賲匕賴亘 賵賲賳賴噩 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賵賳 賮賷 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賰丕賳 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賵賳 賷鬲亘毓賵賳 賲匕賴亘賸丕 丿賷賳賷丕賸 賲鬲卮丿丿丕賸 賮賷 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 卮乇賷毓丞 賲賵爻賶 賵丕賱爻賳賳 丕賱卮賮賴賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲賳亘胤賵賴丕. 賱賲 賷賰賳 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賵賳 賲爻鬲賳賷乇賷賳 賵賰丕賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賱賰賴賳丞 丕賱賲亘鬲丿毓賷賳 禺丿丕毓賴賲 賵匕賱賰 亘廿毓胤丕亍 賯乇丕乇丕鬲賴賲 爻賱胤丞 丕賱賳賯賱 賵丕賱兀孬乇. 兀匕賰乇 賲賳賴賲 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳貙 賵賴賵 兀賵賱 賲賳 丕丿毓賶 賲賳 丕賱賮乇賷爻賷賷賳 亘賵噩賵亘 丕禺囟丕毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱毓賯賱. 賵賴賵 賲丕 賳賯丿賴 丕爻倬賷賳賵丕夭 賮賷 亘丨孬賴 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵亘卮丿丞.
廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 禺賱丕賮丕鬲賴賲 賵毓丿丕賵鬲賴賲 賲毓 丕賱氐丿賵賯賷賷賳 貙 賵睾賷乇賴賲 丨賵賱 卮乇賷毓丞 賲賵爻賶 賵丕賱兀爻賮丕乇 . 賴賳丕賰 亘毓囟 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 賮賷 鬲乇鬲賷亘 兀賵 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘賯丕賳賵賳賷丞 亘毓囟 丕賱兀爻賮丕乇.
賷爻鬲賳鬲噩 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 兀賳 丕賱兀賳丕噩賷賱 賵丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賲毓丕賸 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱賲鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲毓胤賷 毓賯賷丿丞 賲鬲噩丕賳爻丞貙 賵兀賳 爻賱胤丞 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲乇噩毓 廿賱賶 禺賷丕賱 丕賱賳亘賷 兀賵 廿賱賶 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丨賵丕乇賷 丕賱卮禺氐賷.
賷乇賶 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 "兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賱賲 賷賯丿賲 賲毓乇賮丞 亘丕賱賲丕賴賷丕鬲貙 賵兀賳賴 丕賯鬲氐乇 賮賯胤 毓賱賶 鬲賯丿賷賲 兀賵丕賲乇 賵賳賵丕賴賺 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賵賱兀賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賰匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賶 賲賳丕賴噩 毓賱賲賷賾丞貙 丨爻亘 乇丐丕賴貙 賵賱丕 廿賱賶 胤乇丕卅賯貙 賵賰賱 賲丕 賯丿賲賴 賱賷爻 廿賱丕 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 賷爻賴賱 廿丿乇丕賰賴丕 賱兀賷 賮乇丿. 兀賷 亘賲毓賳賶 賲丕貙 賵胤亘賯丕 賱賲丕 賷賱賮鬲 丕賱賷賴 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕: 賯賵丕毓丿 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞. 賰賲丕 賷丐賰丿 丕賳 睾乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賴賵 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱胤丕毓丞."
賵 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 兀賷囟丕 賮賷 亘丨孬賴貙 毓賲賱賷丞 鬲賵馗賷賮 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賳爻賯 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷 賳賮爻賴貙 賲賳 賲賵賯毓 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞貙 賵毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 亘丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賵 賰匕賱賰 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 "賷乇賰夭 毓賱賶 賲賮鬲乇賯 丕賱胤乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞." 賵賳丕賯卮 兀亘毓丕丿 賵乇賰丕卅夭 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵胤亘賷毓丞 丕賮乇丕夭丕鬲賴丕 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓賷丞 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴丕 亘爻丿丞 丕賱丨賰賲 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓.
亘賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱爻賷丕爻丞: 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 亘毓囟 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賲賳 丿賵賱丞 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賴丕.
毓乇囟 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱丨賰賲 毓賳丿 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 賰賲丕 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 兀賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賷賵賯乇丕胤賷丞. 賵丕爻鬲毓乇囟 賰賷賮 囟丕毓鬲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賷賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 亘爻亘亘 丕賲鬲賷丕夭丕鬲 胤亘賯丞 丕賱賰賴賳賵鬲. 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 鬲賲孬賱 賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱胤亘賯丞 禺胤賵乇丞 賰亘賷乇丞 毓賱賶 爻賱丕賲丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 丕匕 賷乇賶 丕爻倬賷賳賵夭丕 亘囟乇賵乇丞 賮氐賱 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 毓賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 丨鬲賶 賱丕 賷禺賱胤 丕賱賳丕爻 亘賷賳 丕賱亘丿毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱丕賱賴賷丞 兀賵 亘賷賳 丕賱賮鬲賳 賵丕賱賲氐丕丿賲丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賮丕毓 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 賵亘賷賳 丕賱爻賱丕賲 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷 賮賷 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 賰賲丕 亘賷賳 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 亘丨孬賴 兀賳 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賲賰賮賵賱丞 賱賰賱 賮乇丿 賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丨乇丞貨 兀賷 賱丕 鬲賲孬賱 禺胤乇丕賸 毓賱賶 爻賱丕賲丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞貙 兀賷 兀賳 丕賱毓賯賱 兀賷囟丕 賴賵 兀爻丕爻 賰賱 賳馗丕賲 爻賷丕爻賷 鬲鬲亘毓賴 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 賴賵 賲賳 兀賳氐丕乇 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲丿賳賷-丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賲丿賳賷貙 賵賴賵 賯乇賷亘 噩丿丕賸 賲賳 賮賰乇 賵乇賵丨 賲賵賳鬲爻賰賷賵.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賱賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 乇賵丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻貨 鬲丕乇賷禺 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵賷賴賵匕丕 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓丕卮乇 廿賱賶 丕賱爻丕亘毓 賯亘賱 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿.
November 10, 2022
One quote review.
An excerpt from the book:
"The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity."
The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, 铆njunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension.
_______________________________
Also, "Smoking cigarettes may be hazardous to your health."
But that is not prohibited obviously 鈥� (Nothing is, nothing can be) 鈥� you are just informed of a c谩usal link.
An excerpt from the book:
"The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity."
The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, 铆njunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension.
_______________________________
Also, "Smoking cigarettes may be hazardous to your health."
But that is not prohibited obviously 鈥� (Nothing is, nothing can be) 鈥� you are just informed of a c谩usal link.
June 12, 2021
The first time I attempted to read this book, I could not get past the Bible citations and how meaningless they all seemed to me at the time. Now, after having read this book, I understand what Spinoza was really getting at and why he had to tell the story the way he did.
Spinoza does his best while keeping within the paradigm of his time period by using its belief-system as his background while overturning the old system and creating a new system. Just as what Marx did for political economy and Nietzsche did for philosophy, Spinoza does that for theology.
Spinoza in so many words will say it鈥檚 absurd to apply special pleading for the Bible if it means that we no longer can apply common sense or consider the context, contrast, and relations which are inherent within the text of the Bible itself. For example, when Joshua said the sun stood still, it was meant to indicate how his fellow citizens would have thought of the situation at the time. Spinoza takes this one big thought and uses it to create a whole new way of understanding theology and manages to write one of the most influential books ever.
Spinoza makes God all powerful and His creation of a universe necessary because for Spinoza all that happens must be and any God who does not necessarily follow the 鈥榣aws of nature鈥� would not be the most perfect being and Spinoza will make Nature itself the same as God Himself and each must follow necessarily from the divine ordinance inherent within each such that one most likely should not refer to Spinoza as a pantheist since there is no 鈥榯here there鈥� except for what is there (in the book Radical Enlightenment the author will also say that it is wrong to think of Spinoza as a pantheist). Spinoza can pretend to be a theist while almost all of his subsequent followers would view him as an atheist or as a panentheist (God is not only within the universe, He also transcends space and time and is outside of the universe, hence giving Him a 鈥楪od鈥檚 eye view鈥�).
According to Spinoza the Bible, both the New and the Old Testament, teaches the believer obedience and a path for salvation, and that obedience to Goodness with its contemplation of the Divine of the One is at the nexus of faith and that鈥檚 what faith means. All life and everything that exist has a conatus (Latin: struggle) and all existence must be in order to exist. Schopenhauer turns conatus into will and Nietzsche turns it into will to power and Heidegger turns it into care (he also makes it into will to power but goes back to care. The intro to this book written in 1883 mentions that Kant is almost the only major philosopher who was not overly influenced by Spinoza and doesn鈥檛 follow Spinoza鈥檚 One substance (reality) path and just to note Plotinus has a lot of foreshadowing to Spinoza and Spinoza seems to have nothing but respect for Maimonides.
Spinoza will say that when the Red Sea was parted for Moses it was most likely a strong wind storm that was already brewing elsewhere, or when the Bible says God harden Pharaoh鈥檚 heart it was not God that did it but everything that happened before that made Pharaoh鈥檚 heart harden such as the plagues, or the soon to be death of the first born male child and so on, and when the Bible says 鈥楪od harden Pharaoh鈥檚 heart鈥�, that was just a way of speaking. This is really a big point within Spinoza鈥檚 system and otherwise an atheist could point out how cruel and immoral God was if Spinoza鈥檚 way of seeing the Bible is not accepted. Because, if God harden Pharaoh鈥檚 heart it would mean he was responsible for immorally killing the first born of all the Egyptians. I prefer seeing the situation from Spinoza鈥檚 point-of-view, then from the point-of-view of an immoral psychotic killer God.
Most importantly, Spinoza will say that when Jesus talked about there being demons that he cast out and a house cannot stand against itself, Jesus was not saying that he believed demons were real he was just logically assuming the assumptions of the Pharisees to show them why they were wrong. I鈥檝e heard modern day atheist say that Jesus believed demons were real because of what the Bible said, but for Gawd鈥檚 sake can鈥檛 they at least quote Spinoza from this 350 year old book for a contra view point. This argument that Spinoza makes about Jesus and his belief in demons is at the crux of Spinoza鈥檚 method for overturning the world鈥檚 paradigm.
This book also included the not yet finish Political Tractatus by Spinoza. Politics, which are clearly not Spinoza鈥檚 strengths as illustrated by this books fragments. Within this uncompleted book, he did say one thing that shouted out for its absurdity, 鈥榠f we go by experience women should have no role in government or society at large鈥� while thinking experience should be his guide. Of course, if you excluded a segment of society by not allowing easy participation by them that segment of society would always be under-represented in abilities and achievement and not be as adept as the other segments that were given advantages. Experience and functional realities are not always the best way to understand what should be, that is, sometimes what is (based on experience) should not determine what should be.
Spinoza uses the world鈥檚 belief-system and turns them unto themselves in such a way that one can see the world for the very first time. This book is not only historically incredibly important; it is also relevant today and is worthwhile for today鈥檚 modern readers.
My old review from 2016 which I'm happy to report was wrong since I understand now how this book is one of the all time great books! (Thank you Radical Enlightenment for educating me).
***
As tedious as watching re-runs of "Seinfield". I really enjoyed the author's "Ethics". This book was painful because he's constantly quoting 'scripture' both new and old testament. He painfully lays the biblical foundation that he uses in his "Ethics". Nicest thing I can say for this book is that it's no worse than most Liberal Theological books available today would be.
I enjoy Star Trek. I'm not going to argue the truth and the wisdom of the Prime Directive by selectively quoting from different episodes and claiming each story was written by different authors and all inspired by Gene Rodenberry (may his grace forever shine on the Federation of Planets and His prophet James T Kirk be forever in your heart). Anyway you cut it transporters, planets where everyone conveniently speaks English, Apollo lives, and other such things don't exist, and I really don't care to pretend they do. The bible has talking snakes, zebras getting their stripes, zombies roaming through out all of Jerusalem, rods turning into snakes and so on. Don't waste my time in arguing if Star Dates make sense or not (they don't), and what Jesus said or didn't say to who and he didn't say it to is just as irrelevant to me.
Don't waste your time on this one.
Spinoza does his best while keeping within the paradigm of his time period by using its belief-system as his background while overturning the old system and creating a new system. Just as what Marx did for political economy and Nietzsche did for philosophy, Spinoza does that for theology.
Spinoza in so many words will say it鈥檚 absurd to apply special pleading for the Bible if it means that we no longer can apply common sense or consider the context, contrast, and relations which are inherent within the text of the Bible itself. For example, when Joshua said the sun stood still, it was meant to indicate how his fellow citizens would have thought of the situation at the time. Spinoza takes this one big thought and uses it to create a whole new way of understanding theology and manages to write one of the most influential books ever.
Spinoza makes God all powerful and His creation of a universe necessary because for Spinoza all that happens must be and any God who does not necessarily follow the 鈥榣aws of nature鈥� would not be the most perfect being and Spinoza will make Nature itself the same as God Himself and each must follow necessarily from the divine ordinance inherent within each such that one most likely should not refer to Spinoza as a pantheist since there is no 鈥榯here there鈥� except for what is there (in the book Radical Enlightenment the author will also say that it is wrong to think of Spinoza as a pantheist). Spinoza can pretend to be a theist while almost all of his subsequent followers would view him as an atheist or as a panentheist (God is not only within the universe, He also transcends space and time and is outside of the universe, hence giving Him a 鈥楪od鈥檚 eye view鈥�).
According to Spinoza the Bible, both the New and the Old Testament, teaches the believer obedience and a path for salvation, and that obedience to Goodness with its contemplation of the Divine of the One is at the nexus of faith and that鈥檚 what faith means. All life and everything that exist has a conatus (Latin: struggle) and all existence must be in order to exist. Schopenhauer turns conatus into will and Nietzsche turns it into will to power and Heidegger turns it into care (he also makes it into will to power but goes back to care. The intro to this book written in 1883 mentions that Kant is almost the only major philosopher who was not overly influenced by Spinoza and doesn鈥檛 follow Spinoza鈥檚 One substance (reality) path and just to note Plotinus has a lot of foreshadowing to Spinoza and Spinoza seems to have nothing but respect for Maimonides.
Spinoza will say that when the Red Sea was parted for Moses it was most likely a strong wind storm that was already brewing elsewhere, or when the Bible says God harden Pharaoh鈥檚 heart it was not God that did it but everything that happened before that made Pharaoh鈥檚 heart harden such as the plagues, or the soon to be death of the first born male child and so on, and when the Bible says 鈥楪od harden Pharaoh鈥檚 heart鈥�, that was just a way of speaking. This is really a big point within Spinoza鈥檚 system and otherwise an atheist could point out how cruel and immoral God was if Spinoza鈥檚 way of seeing the Bible is not accepted. Because, if God harden Pharaoh鈥檚 heart it would mean he was responsible for immorally killing the first born of all the Egyptians. I prefer seeing the situation from Spinoza鈥檚 point-of-view, then from the point-of-view of an immoral psychotic killer God.
Most importantly, Spinoza will say that when Jesus talked about there being demons that he cast out and a house cannot stand against itself, Jesus was not saying that he believed demons were real he was just logically assuming the assumptions of the Pharisees to show them why they were wrong. I鈥檝e heard modern day atheist say that Jesus believed demons were real because of what the Bible said, but for Gawd鈥檚 sake can鈥檛 they at least quote Spinoza from this 350 year old book for a contra view point. This argument that Spinoza makes about Jesus and his belief in demons is at the crux of Spinoza鈥檚 method for overturning the world鈥檚 paradigm.
This book also included the not yet finish Political Tractatus by Spinoza. Politics, which are clearly not Spinoza鈥檚 strengths as illustrated by this books fragments. Within this uncompleted book, he did say one thing that shouted out for its absurdity, 鈥榠f we go by experience women should have no role in government or society at large鈥� while thinking experience should be his guide. Of course, if you excluded a segment of society by not allowing easy participation by them that segment of society would always be under-represented in abilities and achievement and not be as adept as the other segments that were given advantages. Experience and functional realities are not always the best way to understand what should be, that is, sometimes what is (based on experience) should not determine what should be.
Spinoza uses the world鈥檚 belief-system and turns them unto themselves in such a way that one can see the world for the very first time. This book is not only historically incredibly important; it is also relevant today and is worthwhile for today鈥檚 modern readers.
My old review from 2016 which I'm happy to report was wrong since I understand now how this book is one of the all time great books! (Thank you Radical Enlightenment for educating me).
***
As tedious as watching re-runs of "Seinfield". I really enjoyed the author's "Ethics". This book was painful because he's constantly quoting 'scripture' both new and old testament. He painfully lays the biblical foundation that he uses in his "Ethics". Nicest thing I can say for this book is that it's no worse than most Liberal Theological books available today would be.
I enjoy Star Trek. I'm not going to argue the truth and the wisdom of the Prime Directive by selectively quoting from different episodes and claiming each story was written by different authors and all inspired by Gene Rodenberry (may his grace forever shine on the Federation of Planets and His prophet James T Kirk be forever in your heart). Anyway you cut it transporters, planets where everyone conveniently speaks English, Apollo lives, and other such things don't exist, and I really don't care to pretend they do. The bible has talking snakes, zebras getting their stripes, zombies roaming through out all of Jerusalem, rods turning into snakes and so on. Don't waste my time in arguing if Star Dates make sense or not (they don't), and what Jesus said or didn't say to who and he didn't say it to is just as irrelevant to me.
Don't waste your time on this one.
September 18, 2016
兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 賰鬲亘 賳賯丿 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 丕賱賲丨賵乇賷丞 賵賴賵 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷氐賳賮 賮賶 賯丕卅賲丞 兀賮囟賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賰鬲亘 . 廿賳賴 丨賵丕乇 毓賯賱賶 禺丕賱氐 賷噩毓賱賰 鬲賳賯丿 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀賮賰丕乇賰 賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳 賱丿賷賰 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱賲賵乇賵孬 丕賱賲鬲乇爻禺 賮賴賵 賱匕賱賰 賱丕 賷氐賱丨 賱賱賲亘鬲丿卅賷賳 .
賷爻鬲賴丿賮 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賮賶 賴匕賴 丕賱乇爻丕賱丞 賳賯丕胤丕賸 兀爻丕爻賷丞 賵賴賶 丕賱賮氐賱 亘賷賳 丕賱丿賷賳 兀賵 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱丿賵賱丞 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶 . 賵賷爻鬲賱夭賲 匕賱賰 賲賳賴 廿爻鬲賴丿丕賮 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丕胤 丕賱孬丕賳賵賷丞 丕賱賴丕賲丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賯毓 賮賶 廿胤丕乇 丕賱亘丨孬 賵兀賴賲賴丕 賳賯丿 鬲毓丿丿 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賵賴賵 賷乇賶 兀賳 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賰賱賴丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲鬲賱禺氐 賮賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘賵噩賵丿賴 賰卮乇胤 丕賵賱 孬賲 丨亘 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賵丨爻賳 賲毓丕賲賱鬲賴賲 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶 兀賲丕 賲丕 賮賶 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 兀賵 賮賶 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 亘賵噩賴 毓丕賲 賲賳 賯氐氐 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賵 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賮賴賶 夭賵丕卅丿 賱丕 鬲賴丿賮 廿賱丕 廿賱賶 囟乇亘 丕賱兀賲孬丕賱 兀賵 鬲賯乇賷亘 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 亘卮賰賱 卮丕毓乇賶 丕賵 賮賶 卮賰賱 丨賰賲 賲賵噩夭丞 賱賱毓賵丕賲 . 賵賴賵 賴賳丕 賷賳賯丿 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 賳賯丿丕賸 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丕賸 賵賴賵 丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱爻賱賷賲 毓賳丿賴 賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 丕賱鬲賶 廿爻鬲賴丿賮鬲 兀賲賲丕賸 賲毓賷賳丞 賮賶 兀夭賲賳丞賸 賲丨丿丿丞 . 賵賲賳 孬賲 賷賳鬲賯賱 廿賱賶 鬲賵囟賷丨 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賵賳爻亘鬲賴丕 廿賱賶 毓賱賱 胤亘賷毓賷丞 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賲毓賱賵賲丞 丌賳匕丕賰 . 賵賷賳賮賶 丨賯賷賯丞 賲丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賲賳賴丕 賵賴賶 賳鬲賷噩丞 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賱賲賮賴賵賲丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賶 毓賳 賵丨丿丞 丕賱賱賴 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 兀賵 賲丕 賷毓乇賮 亘丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱丨賱賵賱賶 .
賵賷賳鬲賯賱 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 廿賱賶 胤亘賷毓丞 賵丨賶 丕賱乇爻賱 賵丕賱鬲丨賯賷賯 賵丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 賮賶 氐賮丕鬲 丕賱賱賴 亘賷賳 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 賲毓乇賮鬲賴 賲賳賴丕 亘丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱胤亘賷毓賶 賵賲丕 賳毓乇賮賴 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賮丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞.
賵賲賵丕囟賷毓 兀禺乇賶 匕丕鬲 胤丕亘毓 賱丕賴賵鬲賶 賲孬賱 氐丨丞 賳爻亘 兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賵丨賯賷賯丞 賲丕 丿賵賳 賲賳 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱噩丿賷丿 賵乇爻丕卅賱 丕賱丨賵丕乇賷賷賳 賵丕賱廿禺鬲賱丕賮 亘賷賳賴丕 賵胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞-丕賶 賲丕 賷賳丕賯囟 丕賱毓賯賱 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘- 賵丕賱匕丕鬲賷丞 -丕賶 鬲賳丕賯囟 賮賶 匕丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘- 亘賷賳 丌賷丕鬲賴 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵賲丕 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 賲賳 賲亘丕丨孬 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐丞 .
孬賲 賷亘丿兀 賮賶 廿亘乇丕夭 賮賱爻賮鬲賴 兀賵賱丕 亘賲賳丕賯卮丞 賲毓囟賱丞 禺囟賵毓 丕賱毓賯賱 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賵 丕賱毓賰爻 賵賴賵 賷賳賯囟 賰賱丕 丕賱賮賰乇鬲賷賳 賵賷賵囟丨 賲丕 丨丿孬 禺賱丕賱 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賲賳 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 賲丕 夭丕賱鬲 鬲毓丕賳賶 賲賳賴丕 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 亘爻亘亘 廿鬲亘丕毓 丕賶 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丌乇丕亍 . 賵禺賱丕氐丞 賲丕 賷乇鬲兀賷賴 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賴賳丕 賴賵 丕賳 賱賰賱 賲賳賴賲丕 賲噩丕賱賴 丕賱禺丕氐 丕賱匕賶 賱丕 賷賲賰賳賴 亘兀賶 卮賰賱 丕賱鬲丿禺賱 賮賶 賲噩丕賱 丕賱丌禺乇 賮丕賱毓賯賱 賲噩丕賱賴 丕賱鬲賮賱爻賮 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賵賴賵 賷賴丿賮 賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賲毓乇賮丞 毓賯賱賷丞 鬲丐丿賶 廿賱賶 丨亘 丕賱賱賴 丨亘丕賸 禺丕賱氐丕 賵鬲丨乇乇 氐丕丨亘賴丕 賲賳 賳賷乇 丕賱胤丕毓丞 丕賱毓賲賷丕亍 賱賱兀丿賷丕賳 賵亘丕賱胤亘毓 賷乇賶 兀賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱毓賯賱賶 兀爻賲賶 賰孬賷乇丕 賲賳 廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱毓賵丕賲 . 兀賲丕 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賲噩丕賱賴 丕賱胤丕毓丞 賵丕賱鬲賶 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱賱毓賯賱 丕賵 賱賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賳 鬲噩亘乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱禺囟賵毓 賵丕賱胤丕毓丞 賱賱兀賵丕賲乇 丕賱廿賱賴賷丞 .
賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賶 賷丨鬲丕噩 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 廿賱賶 卮乇丨 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賵賴賶 毓賳丿賴 賱丕 鬲爻丕賴賲 賮賶 夭賷丕丿丞 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴 兀賵 鬲爻丕毓丿 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮鬲賴 兀賵 丕賱廿鬲氐丕賱 亘賴 賵賴賵 賷賳爻亘 丨賯 鬲賳馗賷賲 賴匕賴 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賱賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賶 爻賷亘賳賷賴丕 賴賳丕 毓賱賶 兀爻丕爻 毓賯賱賶 賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賶 . 賵賴匕丕 丕賱丨賯 賮賶 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賳丕鬲噩 毓賳 賰賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賵爻賷賱丞 賱賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 賵丨丿丞 亘賳丕亍 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賴賶 賳鬲賷噩丞 賷孬亘鬲賴丕 亘丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱賲丨囟丞 賲乇丞 賵亘丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 賲毓鬲賲丿丕 賮賶 丕賱兀賵賱賶 毓賱賶 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯丿 賵賮賶 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 毓賱賶 兀賲孬賱丞 賲賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賵丿賵賱鬲賴賲 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 .
丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 兀賳賶 賱賲 兀賵賮賯 賮賶 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賯賷賲 賱賰賳 賱丕 亘丿 賱賱賯丕乇賶亍 兀賳 賷噩丿 賲鬲毓丞 毓賯賱賷丞 賰亘賷乇丞 賮賶 賮賱爻賮丞 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱賲鬲賲丕爻賰丞 賵賱丕亘丿 兀賳賴 賵丕噩丿 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丿 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱丌禺乇 賱匕丕鬲賴 賷禺乇噩 賲賳 亘賷賳賴賲丕 亘兀賮賰丕乇 噩丿賷丿丞 兀賰孬乇 氐丨丞 賵賲賳胤賯賷丞 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 .
賷爻鬲賴丿賮 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賮賶 賴匕賴 丕賱乇爻丕賱丞 賳賯丕胤丕賸 兀爻丕爻賷丞 賵賴賶 丕賱賮氐賱 亘賷賳 丕賱丿賷賳 兀賵 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱丿賵賱丞 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶 . 賵賷爻鬲賱夭賲 匕賱賰 賲賳賴 廿爻鬲賴丿丕賮 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丕胤 丕賱孬丕賳賵賷丞 丕賱賴丕賲丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賯毓 賮賶 廿胤丕乇 丕賱亘丨孬 賵兀賴賲賴丕 賳賯丿 鬲毓丿丿 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賵賴賵 賷乇賶 兀賳 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賰賱賴丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲鬲賱禺氐 賮賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘賵噩賵丿賴 賰卮乇胤 丕賵賱 孬賲 丨亘 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賵丨爻賳 賲毓丕賲賱鬲賴賲 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶 兀賲丕 賲丕 賮賶 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 兀賵 賮賶 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 亘賵噩賴 毓丕賲 賲賳 賯氐氐 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賵 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賮賴賶 夭賵丕卅丿 賱丕 鬲賴丿賮 廿賱丕 廿賱賶 囟乇亘 丕賱兀賲孬丕賱 兀賵 鬲賯乇賷亘 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 亘卮賰賱 卮丕毓乇賶 丕賵 賮賶 卮賰賱 丨賰賲 賲賵噩夭丞 賱賱毓賵丕賲 . 賵賴賵 賴賳丕 賷賳賯丿 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 賳賯丿丕賸 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丕賸 賵賴賵 丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱爻賱賷賲 毓賳丿賴 賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 丕賱鬲賶 廿爻鬲賴丿賮鬲 兀賲賲丕賸 賲毓賷賳丞 賮賶 兀夭賲賳丞賸 賲丨丿丿丞 . 賵賲賳 孬賲 賷賳鬲賯賱 廿賱賶 鬲賵囟賷丨 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賵賳爻亘鬲賴丕 廿賱賶 毓賱賱 胤亘賷毓賷丞 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賲毓賱賵賲丞 丌賳匕丕賰 . 賵賷賳賮賶 丨賯賷賯丞 賲丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賲賳賴丕 賵賴賶 賳鬲賷噩丞 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賱賲賮賴賵賲丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賶 毓賳 賵丨丿丞 丕賱賱賴 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 兀賵 賲丕 賷毓乇賮 亘丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱丨賱賵賱賶 .
賵賷賳鬲賯賱 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 廿賱賶 胤亘賷毓丞 賵丨賶 丕賱乇爻賱 賵丕賱鬲丨賯賷賯 賵丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 賮賶 氐賮丕鬲 丕賱賱賴 亘賷賳 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 賲毓乇賮鬲賴 賲賳賴丕 亘丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱胤亘賷毓賶 賵賲丕 賳毓乇賮賴 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賮丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞.
賵賲賵丕囟賷毓 兀禺乇賶 匕丕鬲 胤丕亘毓 賱丕賴賵鬲賶 賲孬賱 氐丨丞 賳爻亘 兀爻賮丕乇 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賵丨賯賷賯丞 賲丕 丿賵賳 賲賳 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱噩丿賷丿 賵乇爻丕卅賱 丕賱丨賵丕乇賷賷賳 賵丕賱廿禺鬲賱丕賮 亘賷賳賴丕 賵胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞-丕賶 賲丕 賷賳丕賯囟 丕賱毓賯賱 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘- 賵丕賱匕丕鬲賷丞 -丕賶 鬲賳丕賯囟 賮賶 匕丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘- 亘賷賳 丌賷丕鬲賴 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵賲丕 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 賲賳 賲亘丕丨孬 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐丞 .
孬賲 賷亘丿兀 賮賶 廿亘乇丕夭 賮賱爻賮鬲賴 兀賵賱丕 亘賲賳丕賯卮丞 賲毓囟賱丞 禺囟賵毓 丕賱毓賯賱 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賵 丕賱毓賰爻 賵賴賵 賷賳賯囟 賰賱丕 丕賱賮賰乇鬲賷賳 賵賷賵囟丨 賲丕 丨丿孬 禺賱丕賱 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賲賳 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 賲丕 夭丕賱鬲 鬲毓丕賳賶 賲賳賴丕 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 亘爻亘亘 廿鬲亘丕毓 丕賶 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丌乇丕亍 . 賵禺賱丕氐丞 賲丕 賷乇鬲兀賷賴 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賴賳丕 賴賵 丕賳 賱賰賱 賲賳賴賲丕 賲噩丕賱賴 丕賱禺丕氐 丕賱匕賶 賱丕 賷賲賰賳賴 亘兀賶 卮賰賱 丕賱鬲丿禺賱 賮賶 賲噩丕賱 丕賱丌禺乇 賮丕賱毓賯賱 賲噩丕賱賴 丕賱鬲賮賱爻賮 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賵賴賵 賷賴丿賮 賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱賴 賲毓乇賮丞 毓賯賱賷丞 鬲丐丿賶 廿賱賶 丨亘 丕賱賱賴 丨亘丕賸 禺丕賱氐丕 賵鬲丨乇乇 氐丕丨亘賴丕 賲賳 賳賷乇 丕賱胤丕毓丞 丕賱毓賲賷丕亍 賱賱兀丿賷丕賳 賵亘丕賱胤亘毓 賷乇賶 兀賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱毓賯賱賶 兀爻賲賶 賰孬賷乇丕 賲賳 廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱毓賵丕賲 . 兀賲丕 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賲噩丕賱賴 丕賱胤丕毓丞 賵丕賱鬲賶 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱賱毓賯賱 丕賵 賱賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賳 鬲噩亘乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱禺囟賵毓 賵丕賱胤丕毓丞 賱賱兀賵丕賲乇 丕賱廿賱賴賷丞 .
賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賶 賷丨鬲丕噩 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 廿賱賶 卮乇丨 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賵賴賶 毓賳丿賴 賱丕 鬲爻丕賴賲 賮賶 夭賷丕丿丞 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴 兀賵 鬲爻丕毓丿 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮鬲賴 兀賵 丕賱廿鬲氐丕賱 亘賴 賵賴賵 賷賳爻亘 丨賯 鬲賳馗賷賲 賴匕賴 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賱賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賶 爻賷亘賳賷賴丕 賴賳丕 毓賱賶 兀爻丕爻 毓賯賱賶 賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯丿 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賶 . 賵賴匕丕 丕賱丨賯 賮賶 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賳丕鬲噩 毓賳 賰賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賵爻賷賱丞 賱賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 賵丨丿丞 亘賳丕亍 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賴賶 賳鬲賷噩丞 賷孬亘鬲賴丕 亘丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱賲丨囟丞 賲乇丞 賵亘丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 賲毓鬲賲丿丕 賮賶 丕賱兀賵賱賶 毓賱賶 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯丿 賵賮賶 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 毓賱賶 兀賲孬賱丞 賲賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賵丿賵賱鬲賴賲 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 .
丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 兀賳賶 賱賲 兀賵賮賯 賮賶 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賯賷賲 賱賰賳 賱丕 亘丿 賱賱賯丕乇賶亍 兀賳 賷噩丿 賲鬲毓丞 毓賯賱賷丞 賰亘賷乇丞 賮賶 賮賱爻賮丞 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賱賲鬲賲丕爻賰丞 賵賱丕亘丿 兀賳賴 賵丕噩丿 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丿 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱丌禺乇 賱匕丕鬲賴 賷禺乇噩 賲賳 亘賷賳賴賲丕 亘兀賮賰丕乇 噩丿賷丿丞 兀賰孬乇 氐丨丞 賵賲賳胤賯賷丞 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 .
January 14, 2013
Like Nietzsche, who adored Spinoza and called him "the purest philosopher," and Hobbes, whom Spinoza had read and admired, there is a certain brutal honesty in Spinoza's philosophy that comes through vividly in the Theological-Political Treatise. This short work, produced in Amsterdam in the 17th-century at the height of Calvin's influence, was actually written after his more famous Ethics, though published before it. Spinoza here describes his views of the relationship between Scripture, the State, God, and Nature. In many ways, Spinoza is the first modern biblical scholar as he takes the Bible as his data points for reconstructing the actual history behind the text. He was excommunicated from the Jewish community in Amsterdam for his "heretical" views, e.g. miracles do not occur and Moses did not write the entire Torah, and he elaborates on these views in the TTP. Because Spinoza equates Nature with God and the divine law with the natural law, there are times when he seems to endorse power as the ultimate organizing force of life and society. At other times he says things like the most natural state of society is democracy, the only commandments to love God and love your neighbor, and true piety consists merely in justice and charity. He claims that Jesus is the "Voice of God" and yet God is depicted as being remote and impersonal. There is a duplicity here that I can't quite put my finger on--like he wants to preserve a sense of "goodness" while neutralizing everything under the will to power (exercised by nature and political sovereigns). My motto is: beware of the philosophers of COLD HARD TRUTH. As William James said, "What has concluded, that we should conclude about it?"
April 22, 2013
The Enlightenment book on tolerance. Argues that scripture is not just interpreted subjectively but was written subjectively, because God can communicate to men only elliptically, using symbolism and cultural tropes. Calls for intellectual freedom all over the place.
"[P]eople must be governed in such a way that they can live in harmony, even though they openly hold different and contradictory opinions. We cannot doubt that this is the best way of ruling, and has the least disadvantages, since it is the one most in harmony with human nature. In a democratic state (which is the one closest to the state of nature) all men agree, as we showed above, to act--but not judge or think--according to the common decision. That is, because people cannot all have the same opinions, they have agreed that the view which gains the most votes should acquire the forces of a decision" ("A Free State" 14).
Here Spinoza is making his argument for philosophical freedom, and simultaneously placing limits of freedom to break the laws of a state. Freedom to think, but not to act. This passage is interesting to me, in part, because I've just finished reading Walter Benn Micheal's /The Trouble with Diversity/, in which he ridicules (among other things) the idea of "diversity of thought." Should we let our business board meetings include people who think the business shouldn't exist? Should we let hard-core creationists teach high school biology? No, he says. Ideas aren't identity--ideas should battle each other to the death. In the ideal world, there wouldn't be Democrats or Republicans because we've just have Government. No politics, only policies.
Spinoza's tack is rather different. He suggests the kind of pluralism where people "openly hold different and contradictory opinions" despite the way that they agree to act. Spinoza doesn't seem to spend a lot of time talking about how these opinions might interface with people's compliance to act, except where he says earlier that pious dogmas don't have to be true, "not only such as are necessary for inculcating obedience; i.e. those that confirm the mind in love towards our neighbor" ("Faith and Philosophy" 8). This seems to imply--and I might be making a leap here--that as long as your opinions don't break down society into violent chaos, that you can think what you'd like. Like Michaels, Spinoza expects these ideas to have to battle it out, except not for philosophical dominance, but in political. The tyranny of the majority can force a decision, but only a decision of action, not a decision of opinion, which remains stubbornly individual.
Two books or one book?
Your quote about "that everything happens according to natural laws, and to say that everything is ordained by the decree and ordinance of God, is the same thing" was also something that I was thinking about, because not just that nature and scripture are equal, but scripture is only an expression of nature.Even God is an expection of nature; "God acts and governs all things from teh necessity of his own nature" (On divine law). As you said, and Spinoza, "the prophetic gift was not peculiar to the Jews, but common to all peoples" ("On the vocation of the Hebrews), and "only the phenomena of nature we understand clearly and sitinctly that enhance our knowledge of God and reveal as clearly as possible the will and decree of God" ("On miracles 7), SO, then my question becomes this: is prophetic/natural law expressed or created?
I think this will lead into the political questions that Spinoza (foreshadowing) will address later: what is the purpose of society? Is it to just desire that to which nature points them ("On ceremonies and narratives")?
"[P]eople must be governed in such a way that they can live in harmony, even though they openly hold different and contradictory opinions. We cannot doubt that this is the best way of ruling, and has the least disadvantages, since it is the one most in harmony with human nature. In a democratic state (which is the one closest to the state of nature) all men agree, as we showed above, to act--but not judge or think--according to the common decision. That is, because people cannot all have the same opinions, they have agreed that the view which gains the most votes should acquire the forces of a decision" ("A Free State" 14).
Here Spinoza is making his argument for philosophical freedom, and simultaneously placing limits of freedom to break the laws of a state. Freedom to think, but not to act. This passage is interesting to me, in part, because I've just finished reading Walter Benn Micheal's /The Trouble with Diversity/, in which he ridicules (among other things) the idea of "diversity of thought." Should we let our business board meetings include people who think the business shouldn't exist? Should we let hard-core creationists teach high school biology? No, he says. Ideas aren't identity--ideas should battle each other to the death. In the ideal world, there wouldn't be Democrats or Republicans because we've just have Government. No politics, only policies.
Spinoza's tack is rather different. He suggests the kind of pluralism where people "openly hold different and contradictory opinions" despite the way that they agree to act. Spinoza doesn't seem to spend a lot of time talking about how these opinions might interface with people's compliance to act, except where he says earlier that pious dogmas don't have to be true, "not only such as are necessary for inculcating obedience; i.e. those that confirm the mind in love towards our neighbor" ("Faith and Philosophy" 8). This seems to imply--and I might be making a leap here--that as long as your opinions don't break down society into violent chaos, that you can think what you'd like. Like Michaels, Spinoza expects these ideas to have to battle it out, except not for philosophical dominance, but in political. The tyranny of the majority can force a decision, but only a decision of action, not a decision of opinion, which remains stubbornly individual.
Two books or one book?
Your quote about "that everything happens according to natural laws, and to say that everything is ordained by the decree and ordinance of God, is the same thing" was also something that I was thinking about, because not just that nature and scripture are equal, but scripture is only an expression of nature.Even God is an expection of nature; "God acts and governs all things from teh necessity of his own nature" (On divine law). As you said, and Spinoza, "the prophetic gift was not peculiar to the Jews, but common to all peoples" ("On the vocation of the Hebrews), and "only the phenomena of nature we understand clearly and sitinctly that enhance our knowledge of God and reveal as clearly as possible the will and decree of God" ("On miracles 7), SO, then my question becomes this: is prophetic/natural law expressed or created?
I think this will lead into the political questions that Spinoza (foreshadowing) will address later: what is the purpose of society? Is it to just desire that to which nature points them ("On ceremonies and narratives")?
December 21, 2018
Classic work in philosophy, politics, and theology which laid the groundwork for modern biblical criticism. Obviously his speculations of the authorship of the Old Testament are now quite outdated, but his thoughts concerning interpretation and philosophy of religion are still quite relevant and interesting.
Spinoza takes a "third way" when it comes to interpreting the scriptures. One school (Augustine, Maimonides, Ibn-Rushd etc.) advocated making the scriptures subservient to reason if they do not agree with reason (interpret more allegorically) while the other (Luther, Al-Ghazali, etc.) advocated to make reason subservient to the scriptures (interpret more literally).
Spinoza wants to divorce philosophy and theology in claiming that they operate in their own, completely separate, realms; theology and revelation is meant to inspire obedience and piety in the people while philosophy is meant to inspire reason and truth. Currently I am in favor of some version of this argument, although I think Kant did a better job than Spinoza at banishing philosophy from theology and theology from philosophy.
Spinoza takes a "third way" when it comes to interpreting the scriptures. One school (Augustine, Maimonides, Ibn-Rushd etc.) advocated making the scriptures subservient to reason if they do not agree with reason (interpret more allegorically) while the other (Luther, Al-Ghazali, etc.) advocated to make reason subservient to the scriptures (interpret more literally).
Spinoza wants to divorce philosophy and theology in claiming that they operate in their own, completely separate, realms; theology and revelation is meant to inspire obedience and piety in the people while philosophy is meant to inspire reason and truth. Currently I am in favor of some version of this argument, although I think Kant did a better job than Spinoza at banishing philosophy from theology and theology from philosophy.
May 13, 2022
This is a groundbreaking work. Spinoza reasoned that philosophy and theology must be divided from each other. Using philosophical reasoning, he interprets the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) as various writings of men, each from their own perspective, imaginings, and prejudices rather than Divine Revelation, anticipating Higher/Historical Criticism by a century.
Unfortunately, his writing style is dense and convoluted. He spent a great deal of time attempting to make his radical new ideas about scripture understandable and acceptable within the standard worldview of his times. While this was undoubtedly necessary, it can be off putting for a modern reader not burdened with a seventeenth century world view.
I listened to this work on audiobook, which was a mistake. Following Spinoza鈥檚 reasoning through his maze-like writing style often requires backtracking and rereading, which is not easily accomplished on audiobook. I hope to revisit this work in text format at another time.
Unfortunately, his writing style is dense and convoluted. He spent a great deal of time attempting to make his radical new ideas about scripture understandable and acceptable within the standard worldview of his times. While this was undoubtedly necessary, it can be off putting for a modern reader not burdened with a seventeenth century world view.
I listened to this work on audiobook, which was a mistake. Following Spinoza鈥檚 reasoning through his maze-like writing style often requires backtracking and rereading, which is not easily accomplished on audiobook. I hope to revisit this work in text format at another time.
January 3, 2011
Review:
June 2007
Philosophy, the Elite, and the Future
"Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favored by fortune..." Thus begins one of the greatest books in the history of philosophy. Spinoza is an esoteric writer; he doesn't shout everything he has to say, though an attentive reader has a chance, however slight, to discern at least part of it. The existence of this philosophical-political esotericism, first adequately described by Leo Strauss (in "Spinoza's Critique of Religion"), is now on the verge of becoming generally accepted. For a very good example of this new, but qualified, acceptance of Spinoza's esotericism from a left/postmodern perspective, check out the recent collection of essays, "The New Spinoza", edited by Montag & Stolze, especially the essay by Andre Tosel.
But the history of Spinoza reception is another story and another review. Many modern readers of Spinoza speak with vague unease about Spinoza's 'elitism', supposing it to be but another slight of the poor, weak and uneducated; we can perhaps begin to gauge the full length, breadth and depth of this philosophical 'elitism', and its true target, in a focused reading of the opening pages of the Preface to the Theologico-Political Treatise. "The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over-confident, and vain." Thus the problem with Man is not, strictly speaking, merely a lack of knowledge (and therefore the problem is not merely a lack of education) but also, and perhaps most importantly, a lack of self-control.
Immediately, Spinoza follows this sentence by saying, "[t]his as a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe, know their own nature..." There is a disconnect not only between knowing and doing but also between 'knowing' in general and knowing oneself. In order to do good how important is it to know yourself? There are several ways to understand this. One possible way is to say that even those ('sainted' elites) that 'know' are, nevertheless, unable to control their emotional behavior. Perhaps it is even this emotiveness that is especially vulnerable to superstition...
But men, "in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom [...] that they take every offer of advice as a personal insult"! Still, we are not surprised to read that "...superstition's chief victims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages...". (Note that it is not chiefly ordinary people that 'greedily covet temporal advantages' nor is it said that they are 'in prosperity'.) And, a little later, we learn that these people "are wont with prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God...". Indeed, Spinoza, when giving an example of this despicable behavior under duress turns to no less an exemplar than Alexander the Great - and his superstitious seeking of advice from seers. Now, the use of Alexander in this regard is a vital clue in our attempt to understand Spinoza's esotericism (i.e., his 'political' philosophy). The question is this: If Spinoza is indeed an elitist, exactly what is the position that can look down on not only the common people but also the actual 'elite'; i.e., the religious and political leaders?
Well, of course, Spinoza is a philosopher; indeed he is one of the greatest. This understanding of philosophy, as the heights from which one looks down on everyone, is an old one. See, for instance, Averroes (in the so-called 'Decisive Treatise') for an overt example of the philosophical attempt to control a faction of the medieval elite (i.e., the theologians) with another faction of the medieval elite - the Islamic Jurists. Also, one should of course consider Machiavelli's Prince for a somewhat more circumspect (or covert) example of philosophy attempting to control the direction of politics and the political elite. Spinoza's decision to view politics and theology (or politicians and theologians) as dangers that need to be moderated philosophically is thus not unprecedented. Also, on this line of thought one should perhaps also take into account Nietzsche who, in the 'Genealogy of Morals', seems to go so far as to present history itself as a struggle between priestly and warrior noble castes...
In electing to use Alexander as an example of superstition Spinoza is indicating that philosophy is above both religion and politics. Indeed, Spinoza continues in a (ahem) 'Nietzschean' vein and says, "that prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril. I think this is sufficiently plain to all, and will therefore say no more on the subject." Well perhaps not entirely plain; this basically says, for those that have ears to hear: 'Statesman! Either satisfy the common people or forfeit your right to rule to the prophets and their theologians.' Thus the 'war' between priestly and warrior castes was quietly noted, by Spinoza, long before Nietzsche. As an aside I should perhaps note that one also finds oneself (perhaps) nervously asking, at this point, are people today 'satisfied'?
Kojeve, the architect of the most recent apotheosis of the political (i.e., the Universal Homogenous State), seems to confirm this interpretation (in his "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel") by saying that as "long as History continues, or as long as the perfect State is not realized [...] the opposition of these two points of view (the "philosophical" and the religious or theological) is inevitable." Of course Kojeve, following a Hegel that never existed, attempts to convince us that politics and philosophy are exactly the same and that theology was ever nothing. His mistake, from the viewpoint of philosophy, can perhaps be said to be that he took sides in the interminable war between elites. ...But that is another story. However, Kojeve is correct insofar as he is understood to be maintaining that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the political and the religious...
Back to Spinoza. Satisfying the common people seems to be easier said than done. In a terrifyingly memorable passage - that is both a diagnosis and a prophecy - Spinoza writes, "[f]or, as the mass of mankind remains always at about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive." Thus, given the perpetual emotional dissatisfaction of the people, Spinoza seems to be indicating that no one ever rules for long. He also seems to be indicating that emotions (at least among the 'mass of mankind') are uncontrollable and that the people are, in the long run, unsatisfiable. (...So exactly what is Enlightenment - and exactly why is Spinoza supporting it? ...Hmmm.)
"Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved and fostered by fear", Spinoza had earlier said. But fear is an opportunity for philosophy, I mean for philosophical intervention. Machiavelli (in 'The Prince', chapter 6), after all, had already confirmed that the oppression, dissatisfaction and dispersal of the people was, above all, an opportunity for the creative One. Spinoza says that, "Prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril." The fundamental argument (and struggle), of course, between philosophers and the political-religious elites, seems to be over the exact identity of the creative One. For the religiously inclined the creative one is God and those who act in his name, for the politically 'pious' the creative one is the (hereditary, patriotic or revolutionary) 'Prince'. For Machiavelli, Spinoza, and Nietzsche one suspects that, 'behind the scenes and between the lines', the creative one (the bringer of New Modes and Orders, to quote Machiavelli) can only be the philosopher.
Spinoza continues, quoting Curtius (the historian of Alexander): "The mob has no ruler more potent than superstition," and Spinoza immediately adds, "and is easily led, on the plea of religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and abjure them as humanity's common bane." Thus 'superstition' would seem potentially to be either a weapon of the religious or the political... This is a warning; but to exactly whom seems to be a bit unclear. I should mention that it is not impossible to read Machiavelli, with his high praise of ancient pagan religion, to be indicating much the same: that is, the necessary permanence of superstition. ...But, exactly what can and can't be done with superstition?
The way out of this (seemingly) unpredictable and uncontrollable mess? One possible solution, according to Spinoza, is given by the 'Turk'. They have instituted a system that invests "religion, whether true or false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may rise superior to every shock..." Of course, as Spinoza indicates, this absolutism leaves no room for either individual freedom or a thoughtful philosophy. But then Spinoza adds, "yet in a free state no more mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted." So, after discussing (and discounting) the possibility of theocracy (the Turks) Spinoza advocates the system allegedly reigning in Amsterdam: freedom and commerce. (Whew!)
Now, in case some have been asleep for the past 300 years, I will point out that the rise of democracy was not always accomplished peaceably, nor, after its rise, has it been able to always maintain the peace. The test of being able to maintain the peace that Spinoza flings in the face of the Religion of his times can today, with equal appropriateness, be flung in the face of politics. I of course mean all politics. ...But that too is another book and another review.
Spinoza can be said to here begin a process that leads to us. I hope I have begun the process of showing that the target of Spinoza's contempt was not the common people, but the ignorance and weakness of all their tormenters. I also want to note, given both the nature of these elites and also the perpetual suffering of the people, that all solutions are transient. And that the early-modern philosophical turn to the politicos, made in the teeth of ceaseless religious war, was only a maneuver. Over the past century philosophy found itself again in an era of civil wars, revolutions and world wars; - one wonders where philosophy will now turn in its never-ending struggle to moderate elites...
Who will write the next Theologico-Political Treatise that will do to political Ideology what Spinoza here does to religious Revelation? Where is the next 'novelty'?
June 2007
Philosophy, the Elite, and the Future
"Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favored by fortune..." Thus begins one of the greatest books in the history of philosophy. Spinoza is an esoteric writer; he doesn't shout everything he has to say, though an attentive reader has a chance, however slight, to discern at least part of it. The existence of this philosophical-political esotericism, first adequately described by Leo Strauss (in "Spinoza's Critique of Religion"), is now on the verge of becoming generally accepted. For a very good example of this new, but qualified, acceptance of Spinoza's esotericism from a left/postmodern perspective, check out the recent collection of essays, "The New Spinoza", edited by Montag & Stolze, especially the essay by Andre Tosel.
But the history of Spinoza reception is another story and another review. Many modern readers of Spinoza speak with vague unease about Spinoza's 'elitism', supposing it to be but another slight of the poor, weak and uneducated; we can perhaps begin to gauge the full length, breadth and depth of this philosophical 'elitism', and its true target, in a focused reading of the opening pages of the Preface to the Theologico-Political Treatise. "The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over-confident, and vain." Thus the problem with Man is not, strictly speaking, merely a lack of knowledge (and therefore the problem is not merely a lack of education) but also, and perhaps most importantly, a lack of self-control.
Immediately, Spinoza follows this sentence by saying, "[t]his as a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe, know their own nature..." There is a disconnect not only between knowing and doing but also between 'knowing' in general and knowing oneself. In order to do good how important is it to know yourself? There are several ways to understand this. One possible way is to say that even those ('sainted' elites) that 'know' are, nevertheless, unable to control their emotional behavior. Perhaps it is even this emotiveness that is especially vulnerable to superstition...
But men, "in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom [...] that they take every offer of advice as a personal insult"! Still, we are not surprised to read that "...superstition's chief victims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages...". (Note that it is not chiefly ordinary people that 'greedily covet temporal advantages' nor is it said that they are 'in prosperity'.) And, a little later, we learn that these people "are wont with prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God...". Indeed, Spinoza, when giving an example of this despicable behavior under duress turns to no less an exemplar than Alexander the Great - and his superstitious seeking of advice from seers. Now, the use of Alexander in this regard is a vital clue in our attempt to understand Spinoza's esotericism (i.e., his 'political' philosophy). The question is this: If Spinoza is indeed an elitist, exactly what is the position that can look down on not only the common people but also the actual 'elite'; i.e., the religious and political leaders?
Well, of course, Spinoza is a philosopher; indeed he is one of the greatest. This understanding of philosophy, as the heights from which one looks down on everyone, is an old one. See, for instance, Averroes (in the so-called 'Decisive Treatise') for an overt example of the philosophical attempt to control a faction of the medieval elite (i.e., the theologians) with another faction of the medieval elite - the Islamic Jurists. Also, one should of course consider Machiavelli's Prince for a somewhat more circumspect (or covert) example of philosophy attempting to control the direction of politics and the political elite. Spinoza's decision to view politics and theology (or politicians and theologians) as dangers that need to be moderated philosophically is thus not unprecedented. Also, on this line of thought one should perhaps also take into account Nietzsche who, in the 'Genealogy of Morals', seems to go so far as to present history itself as a struggle between priestly and warrior noble castes...
In electing to use Alexander as an example of superstition Spinoza is indicating that philosophy is above both religion and politics. Indeed, Spinoza continues in a (ahem) 'Nietzschean' vein and says, "that prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril. I think this is sufficiently plain to all, and will therefore say no more on the subject." Well perhaps not entirely plain; this basically says, for those that have ears to hear: 'Statesman! Either satisfy the common people or forfeit your right to rule to the prophets and their theologians.' Thus the 'war' between priestly and warrior castes was quietly noted, by Spinoza, long before Nietzsche. As an aside I should perhaps note that one also finds oneself (perhaps) nervously asking, at this point, are people today 'satisfied'?
Kojeve, the architect of the most recent apotheosis of the political (i.e., the Universal Homogenous State), seems to confirm this interpretation (in his "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel") by saying that as "long as History continues, or as long as the perfect State is not realized [...] the opposition of these two points of view (the "philosophical" and the religious or theological) is inevitable." Of course Kojeve, following a Hegel that never existed, attempts to convince us that politics and philosophy are exactly the same and that theology was ever nothing. His mistake, from the viewpoint of philosophy, can perhaps be said to be that he took sides in the interminable war between elites. ...But that is another story. However, Kojeve is correct insofar as he is understood to be maintaining that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the political and the religious...
Back to Spinoza. Satisfying the common people seems to be easier said than done. In a terrifyingly memorable passage - that is both a diagnosis and a prophecy - Spinoza writes, "[f]or, as the mass of mankind remains always at about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive." Thus, given the perpetual emotional dissatisfaction of the people, Spinoza seems to be indicating that no one ever rules for long. He also seems to be indicating that emotions (at least among the 'mass of mankind') are uncontrollable and that the people are, in the long run, unsatisfiable. (...So exactly what is Enlightenment - and exactly why is Spinoza supporting it? ...Hmmm.)
"Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved and fostered by fear", Spinoza had earlier said. But fear is an opportunity for philosophy, I mean for philosophical intervention. Machiavelli (in 'The Prince', chapter 6), after all, had already confirmed that the oppression, dissatisfaction and dispersal of the people was, above all, an opportunity for the creative One. Spinoza says that, "Prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril." The fundamental argument (and struggle), of course, between philosophers and the political-religious elites, seems to be over the exact identity of the creative One. For the religiously inclined the creative one is God and those who act in his name, for the politically 'pious' the creative one is the (hereditary, patriotic or revolutionary) 'Prince'. For Machiavelli, Spinoza, and Nietzsche one suspects that, 'behind the scenes and between the lines', the creative one (the bringer of New Modes and Orders, to quote Machiavelli) can only be the philosopher.
Spinoza continues, quoting Curtius (the historian of Alexander): "The mob has no ruler more potent than superstition," and Spinoza immediately adds, "and is easily led, on the plea of religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and abjure them as humanity's common bane." Thus 'superstition' would seem potentially to be either a weapon of the religious or the political... This is a warning; but to exactly whom seems to be a bit unclear. I should mention that it is not impossible to read Machiavelli, with his high praise of ancient pagan religion, to be indicating much the same: that is, the necessary permanence of superstition. ...But, exactly what can and can't be done with superstition?
The way out of this (seemingly) unpredictable and uncontrollable mess? One possible solution, according to Spinoza, is given by the 'Turk'. They have instituted a system that invests "religion, whether true or false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may rise superior to every shock..." Of course, as Spinoza indicates, this absolutism leaves no room for either individual freedom or a thoughtful philosophy. But then Spinoza adds, "yet in a free state no more mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted." So, after discussing (and discounting) the possibility of theocracy (the Turks) Spinoza advocates the system allegedly reigning in Amsterdam: freedom and commerce. (Whew!)
Now, in case some have been asleep for the past 300 years, I will point out that the rise of democracy was not always accomplished peaceably, nor, after its rise, has it been able to always maintain the peace. The test of being able to maintain the peace that Spinoza flings in the face of the Religion of his times can today, with equal appropriateness, be flung in the face of politics. I of course mean all politics. ...But that too is another book and another review.
Spinoza can be said to here begin a process that leads to us. I hope I have begun the process of showing that the target of Spinoza's contempt was not the common people, but the ignorance and weakness of all their tormenters. I also want to note, given both the nature of these elites and also the perpetual suffering of the people, that all solutions are transient. And that the early-modern philosophical turn to the politicos, made in the teeth of ceaseless religious war, was only a maneuver. Over the past century philosophy found itself again in an era of civil wars, revolutions and world wars; - one wonders where philosophy will now turn in its never-ending struggle to moderate elites...
Who will write the next Theologico-Political Treatise that will do to political Ideology what Spinoza here does to religious Revelation? Where is the next 'novelty'?
August 11, 2018
丕賳 丕賱賳亘賵丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賲孬賱丕鬲 鬲禺鬲賱賮 亘丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕乇丕亍 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 亘賱 賵鬲鬲毓丕乇囟. 丕賳 丕賱賳亘賵丞 賱丕 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 丕賰孬乇 毓賱賲丕 亘賱 鬲鬲乇賰賴賲 毓賱賶 丕乇丕卅賴賲 丕賱鬲賷 賰賵賳賵賴丕 爻賱賮丕. 賱賯丿 鬲爻乇毓 丕賱毓丿賷丿賵賳 賮賷 丕賱丕賯鬲賳丕毓 亘丕賳 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賷毓乇賮賵賳 賰賱 卮賷亍 賲毓 丕賳 亘毓囟 賳氐賵氐 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 鬲丐賰丿 毓賱賶 丕賳賴賲 賯丿 噩賴賱賵丕 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍. 賵賴匕丕 丿賮毓 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賱賶 鬲丕賵賷賱 賳氐賵氐 賵丕囟丨丞 賱丕 鬲丨鬲丕噩 丕賱賶 鬲賮賱爻賮. 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕囟丨丞 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賳爻鬲禺賱氐 賲賳賴丕 丕賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賯賷賱 賮賷賴丕 亘賵囟賵丨 賮賷 爻賷丕賯 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賲毓賷賳. 賵丕匕丕 亘丿丕 丕賱噩賲賷毓 亘丕賱鬲賮賱爻賮 賮賴匕丕 爻賷賮鬲丨 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賱賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賲丕 賮賷賴 賲賳 禺亘孬 丕賳 賷亘鬲丿毓 丕賱亘胤賱丕賳 賵丕賱卮乇. 賱賯丿 賳爻賷賳丕 丕賳 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 亘卮乇 丕賷囟丕 賵亘賲丕 丕賳賴賲 賯丿 賮賴賲賵丕 丕賱賵丨賷 丨爻亘 賲爻鬲賵賶 賮賴賲賴賲 賵賴匕丕 賱丕 賷賳賯氐 賲賳 鬲賯賵丕賴賲 卮賷卅丕 丕匕丕 賱賲 賷賯賵賱賵丕 卮賷卅丕 毓賳 氐賮丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賴 亘賱 賰丕賳鬲 丕乇丕丐賴賲 毓賳 丕賱丕賱賴 賴賷 賳賮爻 丕賱丕乇丕亍 丕賱賲鬲丿丕賵賱丞 賮賷 夭賲丕賳賴賲. 賲丕 賲賷夭 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 毓賳 睾賷乇賴賲 賱賷爻 賲夭丕賷丕賴賲 丕賱乇賵丨賷丞 賮賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 賱丿賷賴 噩丕賳亘 乇賵丨賷 賵鬲丿賷賳 賮胤乇賷 賱賰賳 鬲賯賵丕賴賲 賵乇爻賵禺 丕賷賲丕賳賴賲
丕賳 丕丿賲 賳賮爻賴 賯丿 爻賲毓 丕賱賱賴 丿賵賳 丕賳 賷乇丕賴 賮丕賱賱賴 賯丿 賰卮賮 賱賴 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 賮賴賲賴. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賷賴賲 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 禺賷丕賱賴賲 賱匕丕 鬲毓丿丿鬲 丕賱丕賱賴丞 賵賰丕賳 賱賰賱 丕賲丞 丕賱賴. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賷賰卮賮 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 胤亘賯丕 賱賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱賲爻亘賯 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賱丿賶 賳亘賷賴. 賱匕丕 鬲噩丿 賰賱 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賲鬲賮賯賷賳 賮賷 賳賯胤丞 噩賴賱賴賲 賱氐賮丕鬲 丕賱賱賴 賱丕賳 賴匕丕 賮賵賯 賯丿乇丕鬲 禺賷丕賱 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳
丕賳 丕賱賵丨賷 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇爻賱賴 丕賱賱賴 賰丕賳 賷鬲睾賷乇 丨爻亘 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賮賴賲 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賵丕乇丕卅賴賲 賵丨爻亘 丕賱夭賲丕賳 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳 賱匕丕 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賳賱鬲賲爻 賱丿賶 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賲毓乇賮丞 胤亘賷毓賷丞 丕賵 乇賵丨賷丞. 賱爻賳丕 賲賱夭賲賷賳 亘丕賱丕賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 丕賱丕 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘睾丕賷丞 丕賱賵丨賷 賵噩賵賴乇賴
丕賳 爻毓丕丿丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 鬲鬲賲孬賱 賮賷 鬲賲鬲毓賴 亘丕賱禺賷乇 賲毓 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賱丕 鬲賲鬲毓賴 亘丕賱禺賷乇 賵丕爻鬲毓亘丕丿賴 賱賱丕禺乇賷賳 賵賲賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 賲丨馗賵馗 賵賷鬲賲鬲毓 亘爻毓丕丿丞 丕賰亘乇 賲賳 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賲孬賱 賴匕丕 丕賱卮禺氐 賷噩賴賱 丕賱賳毓賷賲 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賷丿毓賵 丕賱賳丕爻 噩賲賷毓丕 丕賱賶 丕賱禺賱丕氐 賵賰賱 丕賱卮乇丕卅毓 丨賰賷賲丞 賵丕賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賱賷爻 爻賵賶 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賱賴 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賲賳匕 丕賱丕夭賱 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷爻鬲毓賷賳 亘賴丕 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賱賱賲丨丕賮馗丞 毓賱賶 亘賯丕卅賴 . 丕賳 丨賮丕馗 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 亘賯丕卅賴 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 毓賳氐乇賷賳 毓賱丞 禺丕乇噩賷丞 賵賴賷 丕賱丨馗 賮賰賱 賲丕 賷丨丿孬 賷爻賷乇 丨爻亘 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賱賴 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丕亘賱賴 爻毓賷丿丕 丕賵 卮賯賷丕 賰賲丕 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丨賰賷賲 賵丕賱毓賳氐乇 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賵賴賵 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丕賱賷賯馗丞 賵賯丿乇丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丨賲丕賷丞 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 賴噩賲丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇 賵丕賱賵丨賵卮 賵賯丿 丕孬亘鬲 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賳 丕賷賯賳 賵爻賷賱丞 賱匕賱賰 賴賵 鬲賰賵賷賳 賲噩鬲賲毓. 賱匕丕 賮丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱匕賷 賷丨賰賲賴 丕賳丕爻 賷賯馗賵賳 賵毓賱賶 賯丿乇 賰亘賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丿乇丕賷丞 丕賰孬乇 丕賲丕賳丕 賵丕爻鬲賯乇丕乇 賲賳 賲噩鬲賲毓 賷丨賰賲賴 丕噩賱丕賮
丕賱賱賴 賱賲 賷賲賷夭 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 毓賳 睾賷乇賴賲. 賵丕賱賷賴賵丿賷 賱賷爻 丕賮囟賱 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷. 賰賱 丕賱丕賲賲 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴賲 丕賳亘賷丕亍 賵賴匕丕 亘卮賴丕丿丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱丿賳賷賵賷 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賵丕亍 賵丕匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賲丞 鬲丿毓賷 丕賱丕賮囟賱賷丞 賮賴匕丕 賱丕賳賴丕 賲賴鬲賲丞 亘乇賵丕賷丞 卮丐賵賳賴丕 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賱丕 亘乇賵丕賷丞 卮丐賵賳 睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱丕賲賲
丕賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賴賷 賯丕毓丿丞 丨賷丕丞 賮乇囟賴丕 亘毓囟 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱丕禺乇 賰賲丕 賷爻賷胤乇 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱丨氐丕賳 亘丕賱賱噩丕賲. 丕賳 賲賳 賷毓胤賷 賰賱 匕賷 丨賯 丨賯賴 禺賵賮丕 賲賳 丕賱賲卮賳賯丞 賷賮毓賱 匕賱賰 亘丕賲乇 賲賳 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賱匕丕 賮賴賵 賱賷爻 毓丕丿賱丕 賱賰賳 賲賳 賷賮毓賱 匕賱賰 丨爻亘 賲卮賷卅鬲賴 賲賳 丨賯賴 丕賳 賳爻賲賷賴 毓丕丿賱丕. 丕賳 乇睾亘丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賮賷 丕賱丕乇鬲賯丕亍 丕賱賶 丕賱禺賷乇 賴賷 賳丕亘毓丞 賲賳 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賴賵 禺賷乇賳丕 丕賱丕賯氐賶 賮丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱睾丕乇賯 賮賷 賱匕丕鬲 噩爻丿賴 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕亘丿丕 丕賳 賷鬲匕賵賯 賳毓賷賲 丨亘 丕賱賱賴 賵丨丿賴賲 賲賳 賷鬲賲鬲毓賵賳 亘氐賮丕亍 丕賱乇賵丨 賵丕賱匕賴賳 賲賳 賷乇賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞
丕賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賱賷爻鬲 囟乇賵乇賷丞 賱賱丕賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴. 丕賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵丨丿賴丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱鬲丕賲賱 爻鬲鬲賵氐賱 丕賱賶 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賳乇丕賴 賮賷 丕丿賲 丕賵 賮賷 丕賷 丕賳爻丕賳 丕禺乇. 賵賲毓 匕賱賰 鬲亘賯賶 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賲賮賷丿丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賮賰賱賲丕 毓乇賮賳丕 丕禺賱丕賯 丕賱賳丕爻 賵馗乇賵賮賴賲 丕夭丿丿賳丕 丨賰賲丞
丕賳 丕賱卮毓丕卅乇 賵丕賱胤賯賵爻 賱丕 鬲賲孬賱 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賵賱丕 鬲毓賳賷 卮賷卅丕 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴丕 爻賵賶 丕賳賴丕 鬲爻賲丨 亘鬲賰賵賷賳 賳馗丕賲 賷毓鬲亘乇 囟乇賵乇賷 賱賱禺賱丕氐. 丕賳 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賱丕 賷鬲胤賱亘 卮賷卅丕 賱丕 賷亘賱睾賴 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵乇 賳賮爻賴. 丕賳 丕賱賳馗賲 賵丕賱丕賵丕賲乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿毓賷 丕賳賴丕 禺賷乇丞 賮賯胤 賱丕賳賴丕 鬲乇賲夭 賱禺賷乇賴丕 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賳 鬲囟賷賮 賰賲丕賱丕 賱賱丕匕賴丕賳 賱丕賳賴丕 鬲亘賯賶 賲噩乇丿 馗賱丕賱 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賳毓丿賴丕 賲賳 丕賱丕賮毓丕賱 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳亘毓 賲賳 丕賱匕賴賳
丕賳 丕賮囟賱 賴丿賷丞 賷毓胤賷賴丕 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賴賵 丕賱鬲丨乇乇 賲賳 毓亘賵丿賷丞 丕賱噩爻丿
賱丕 賷毓賱賲 賲賵爻賶 鬲丨乇賷賲 丕賱賯鬲賱 賵鬲丨乇賷賲 丕賱爻乇賯丞 賰賲丕 賷毓賱賲賴丕 丕賱賮賯賷賴 丕賵 丕賱賳亘賷 亘賱 賷丕賲乇賴賲 亘匕賱賰 賰賲丕 賷卮乇毓 丕賱賲卮乇毓 丕賵 丕賱丨丕賰賲 賵賱丕 賷孬亘鬲 鬲毓丕賱賷賲賴 亘丕賱丿賱賷賱 亘賱 賷賯乇賳 丕賵丕賲乇賴 亘丕賱鬲賴丿賷丿 賮鬲丨乇賷賲 丕賱夭賳丕 噩丕亍 賱賲氐賱丨丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賵賲賳賮毓丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 毓賰爻 丕賱賲爻賷丨 丕賱匕賷 噩丕亍 丕賱匕賷 賷亘卮乇 亘噩夭丕亍 乇賵丨賷 賱丕賳賴 賱賲 賷賰賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賯丕賲丞 丿賵賱丞
丕賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賷丨乇氐賵賳 毓賱賶 賲賳賮毓鬲賴賲 賵賱賰賳賴賲 賱丕 賷賮毓賱賵賳 匕賱賰 丨爻亘 賲丕 賷賲賱賷賴 毓賱賷賴賲 丕賱毓賯賱 亘賱 丨爻亘 賲丕 鬲賲賱賷賴 卮賴賵丞 丕賱賱匕丞 賵丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賳賮爻 賵賴匕丕 賷賮爻乇 賱賲丕匕丕 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱賲賲賰賳 丕賳 賷亘賯賶 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 亘丿賵賳 賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵爻賱胤丞 丕賲乇丞 賵賯賵丞 鬲賱胤賮 卮賴賵丞 丕賱賱匕丞 賵丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 囟丕亘胤 賱賴丕. 賱賰賳 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賱丕 鬲鬲丨賲賱 丕賱賯賴乇 賵丕賳 賷鬲賲 丕爻鬲毓亘丕丿賴丕 賮丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賲爻鬲毓丿 賱丕賱丨丕賯 丕賱囟乇乇 亘賳賮爻賴 賮賯胤 賲賳 丕噩賱 丕賱丨丕賯 丕賱囟乇乇 亘丕賱爻賷丿. 丕賳 丕卮丿 賲丕 賷丐賱賲 丕賳 鬲禺囟毓 賱丕賲孬丕賱賰. 賱匕丕 賷噩亘 毓賱賶 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賳 賷賯賷賲 爻賱胤丞 鬲賳亘孬賯 賲賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓 亘丨賷孬 賷賰賵賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓 賲賱夭賲賷賳 亘丕胤丕毓丞 丕賳賮爻賴賲 賱丕 丕賲孬丕賱賴賲. 丕賲丕 丕匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 賷丿 賮乇丿 賵丕丨丿 賮賷噩亘 丕賯賳丕毓 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丕賳賴 賮乇丿 賮賷賴 卮賷亍 丕爻賲賶 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞
毓賳丿賲丕 賷毓賲 丕賱噩賴賱 賷氐毓亘 丕賳 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 賷丿 丕賱噩賲賷毓. 丕賳 丕賱鬲毓賵丿 毓賱賶 丕賱毓亘賵丿賷丞 賷丿賮毓 丕賱賶 丕賳 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 賷丿 賮乇丿 賵丕丨丿 賯丕丿乇 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷爻賷乇 丕賱噩賲賷毓 賵毓賱賶 丕賳 賷爻賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵毓賱賶 丕賳 賷噩亘乇 丕賱噩賲賷锟斤拷 毓賱賶 丕賱禺囟賵毓 亘丕賱賯賵丞 賵乇亘賲丕 亘丕賱賱噩賵亍 丕賱賶 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丕賱賴賷丞 丕賷囟丕. 丕賳 丕丿禺丕賱 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賷爻賲丨 亘丕賳 賷賯賵賲 丕賱卮毓亘 亘賵丕噩亘賴 亘丕禺賱丕氐 賱丕 毓賳 乇賴亘丞
丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賷卮賰賱賵賳 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱丕賰亘乇 賲賳 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賲禺丕胤亘丞 毓賯賵賱賴賲 賱丕賳賴賲 睾賷乇 賯丕丿乇賷賳 毓賱賶 乇亘胤 亘丿賷賴賷丕鬲 亘爻賷胤丞 亘亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟. 賱匕丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳禺丕胤亘賴賲 亘丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳 賱丕賳 丕匕賴丕賳賴賲 賱丕 鬲賯賵賶 毓賱賶 丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 亘賵囟賵丨 賵鬲賲賷夭. 賵賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賷毓乇賮賵丕 賰賱 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 鬲賰賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨乇賰 丕賱賳賮賵爻 丕賱賶 丕賯氐賶 丨丿 賵鬲丨孬 毓賱賶 丕賱胤丕毓丞 賵丕賱禺卮賵毓 賮賴賲 賷毓噩亘賵賳 亘丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 賵丕賱賳賴丕賷丕鬲 丕賱毓噩賷亘丞 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲賵賯毓丞 賱賱丕丨丿丕孬 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 丕毓噩丕亘賴賲 亘丕賱毓賯賷丿丞. 賵賴賲 亘丨丕噩丞 丕賱賶 賵毓丕馗 賷毓胤賵賳賴賲 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 鬲鬲賳丕爻亘 賲毓 鬲賰賵賷賳賴賲 丕賱匕賴賳賷
賳丕丿乇丕 賲丕 賷乇賵賷 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 丿賵賳 丕丿禺丕賱 丕乇丕卅賴賲 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賮賷賴. 賵毓賳丿賲丕 賷爻賲毓賵賳 乇丕賷丕 噩丿賷丿丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕乇丕亍賴賲 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 賷氐毓亘 毓賱賷賴賲 丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴 賮丕匕賴丕賳賴賲 鬲賳卮睾賱 亘丕乇丕卅賴賲 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 丕賱賶 丨丿 丕賳賴賲 賷丿乇賰賵賳 卮賷卅丕 賲禺鬲賱賮丕 鬲賲丕賲丕 毓賳 賲丕 爻賲毓賵賴. 禺丕氐丞 丕匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丕賲乇 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯 亘卮賷亍 賷鬲噩丕賵夭 賮賴賲 丕賱爻丕賲毓 賵亘賵噩賴 禺丕氐 丕匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴 賲氐賱丨丞 賮賷 丕賳 賷丨丿孬 卮賷亍 毓賱賶 賳丨賵 賲毓賷賳 賱匕丕 鬲噩丿 丕賱賳丕爻 丿丕卅賲丕 賷乇賵賵賳 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 丕賳胤賱丕賯丕 賲賳 丕賳賮爻賴賲
丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賱丕 賷丨乇氐賵賳 丕亘丿丕 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷毓賷卮賵丕 賵賮賯 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 亘丕賱毓賰爻 鬲噩丿賴賲 賷爻鬲亘丿賱賵賳 賰賱丕賲 丕賱賱賴 亘亘丿毓賴賲 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賵賷亘匕賱賵賳 賯氐丕乇賶 噩賴賵丿賴賲 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賲賳 丕噩賱 丕乇睾丕賲 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷賮賰乇賵丕 賲孬賱賴賲. 賵賴賲 賱丕 賷禺丕賮賵賳 賲賳 丕賱賱賴 賴賵 賷禺丕賮賵賳 賲賳 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賲賳 丕賳 賷鬲賲 丕孬亘丕鬲 禺胤卅賴賲 丕賵 賷鬲爻賱胤 毓賱賷賴賲 丕毓丿丕丐賴賲 丕賵 賷鬲賲 丕丨鬲賯丕乇賴賲. 賵賱賵 賰丕賳 賷丐賲賳賵賳 丨賯丕 賱賲丕 丕亘鬲丿毓賵丕 賵鬲氐丕乇毓賵丕 亘賰乇丕賴賷丞 賵鬲賲賱賰鬲賴賲 乇睾亘丞 毓賲賷丕亍 賴賵噩丕亍 賮賷 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲亘. 丕賳 丕賱胤賲賵丨 丕賱丕噩乇丕賲賷 賱丿賶 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賴賵 賲賳 噩毓賱 丕賱丿賷賳 賷丿丕賮毓 毓賳 亘丿毓 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳. 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賱丕 賷鬲亘毓 丕賱丿賷賳 亘丕賱毓賰爻 丕賱丿賷賳 賴賵 賲賳 賷鬲亘毓 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵賱賲 賷賰鬲賮賵丕 亘賳卮乇 丕賱賰乇丕賴賷丞 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賷賳 亘賱 丕賱睾賵丕 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕丨鬲賯乇賵丕 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕囟丕賮賵丕 丕賱賶 賰賱 卮乇賵乇賴賲 禺乇丕賮丕鬲
睾丕賷丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賴賵 丕賱丨賯 賵睾丕賷丞 丕賱丕賷賲丕賳 賴賵 丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵丕賱胤丕毓丞. 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰丞 丕賱賲爻鬲禺賱氐丞 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱丕賷賲丕賳 丕爻丕爻賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵賮賯賴 丕賱賱睾丞 賵賴賷 鬲爻鬲賲丿 賲賳 丕賱賵丨賷 賵丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞
賮賷 毓丕賱賲 丕賱丕爻賲丕賰 賷丕賰賱 丕賱爻賲賰 丕賱賰亘賷乇 丕賱氐睾賷乇 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 鬲毓胤賷 丕賱丨賯 賱賰賱 賲賵噩賵丿 丨賯 胤亘賷毓賷 賵賲胤賱賯 毓賱賶 賰賱 賲丕 賷賯毓 鬲丨鬲 賯丿乇鬲賴 丕賷 丨賯 賰賱 賮乇丿 賷丿禺賱 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 賯丿乇丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞. 賵賴賳丕 賱丕 賳噩丿 賮丕乇賯丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞. 賵賲賳 賱賲 賷鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 亘毓丿 賮賴賵 賷毓賷卮 鬲丨鬲 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賮丕賱噩丕賴賱 賷毓賷卮 賵賮賯丕 賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱卮賴賵丞 賵賴賰匕丕 賷賰賵賳 丨賯 賰賱 賮乇丿 丨爻亘 乇睾亘鬲賴 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 賵賰賱 丕賱賵爻丕卅賱 賲鬲丕丨丞 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賲禺丕丿毓丞 丕賱氐賱賵丕鬲 賵賲賳 賷賲賳毓賴 毓賳 鬲丨賯賷賯 睾乇囟賴 賴賵 毓丿賵. 賱賰賳 賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳賳爻賶 丕賳 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賳 賷毓賷卮 賮賷 丕賲丕賳 賵亘丿賵賳 禺賵賮 賵賴匕丕 卮賷亍 賲爻鬲丨賷賱 丕匕丕 爻毓賶 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱賶 賮毓賱 賲丕 賷卮丕亍 賵賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賱丕 賷賵噩丿 丕賳爻丕賳 賷毓賷卮 丿賵賳 賯賱賯 丕賵 賰乇丕賴賷丞 丕賵 睾囟亘 丕賵 賲禺丕丿毓丞 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 丕賳爻丕賳 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱禺賱丕氐 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賷丐丿賷 丕賱賶 卮賯丕亍 丕賱亘卮乇. 丕匕丕 賱賲 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵丕 毓賯賵賱賴賲 賵馗賱賵丕 毓亘賷丿丕 賱囟乇賵乇賷丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵丕匕丕 賱賲 賷鬲賮賯賵丕 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲 賵丕匕丕 賱賲 賷毓丕賲賱賵丕 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 亘丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷乇睾亘賵賳 丕賳 鬲鬲賲 賲毓丕賲賱鬲賴賲 亘賴丕 賵賷丨丕賮馗賵丕 毓賱賶 丨賯 丕賱丕禺乇 賰賲丕 賷丨丕賮馗賵賳 毓賱賶 丨賯 丕賳賮爻賴賲 賵丕匕丕 賱賲 賷鬲乇賰賵丕 禺賷乇 丕賱賮乇丿 賱氐丕賱丨 禺賷乇 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 賵鬲賯亘賱賵丕 卮乇丕 賲賳 丕噩賱 鬲噩賳亘 卮乇 丕毓馗賲 賮爻賷馗賱賵賳 禺丕囟毓賷賳 賱卮賴賵丕鬲賴賲 賵賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞
丕賳 丕賮囟賱 丨賰賲 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賴賵 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷 丨賷孬 賷賮賵囟 丕賱丕賮乇丕丿 丕賵 丕賱丕睾賱亘賷丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賱丨丕賰賲 賷爻賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵賷爻賷乇 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 丕賳 丕賷 爻賱胤丞 鬲丨丕賵賱 丕賱鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱丕匕賴丕賳 賴賷 爻賱胤丞 馗丕賱賲丞 鬲賵氐賮 亘丕賱毓賳賮 賵丕賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱賮乇囟 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 賴賷 丕賳鬲夭丕毓 賱丨賯賴 賮賷 丕賳 賷賯乇乇 賲丕 賴賵 丨賯 賵賲丕 賴賵 亘丕胤賱 賵賴匕賴 丕賱丕賲賵乇 鬲毓鬲亘乇 丨賯丕 禺丕賱氐丕 亘賰賱 賮乇丿 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱丕丨丿 丕賳 賷爻賱亘賴 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 賱丿賷賴 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 丕賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 乇丕賷賴 丕賮囟賱 賲賳 丕乇丕亍 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賮丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱丕匕賴丕賳 賱丕 賷賯賱 毓賳 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱丕匕賵丕賯. 丕賳 丕賱毓亘賵丿賷丞 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱賲賱賰賷 賮賯胤 賱賰賳賴丕 賲爻鬲亘毓丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷 賱丕賳 丕賱卮毓亘 丕賰賲賱賴 丕賵 賲毓馗賲賴 賷卮丕乇賰 賮賷 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷丞. 丕賳 丕賱睾丕賷丞 賲賳 鬲丕爻賷爻 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賱賷爻 丕賱爻賷丕丿丞 亘賱 鬲丨乇賷乇 丕賱賮乇丿 賲賳 丕賱禺賵賮 亘丨賷孬 賷毓賷卮 賰賱 賮乇丿 賮賷 丕賲丕賳 亘賯丿乇 丕賱丕賲賰丕賳 賵賷丨鬲賮馗 亘丨賯賴 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 丿賵賳 丕賱丨丕賯 丕賱囟乇乇 亘丕賱丕禺乇賷賳. 賵丕賱睾丕賷丞 賲賳 鬲丕爻賷爻 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賱賷爻 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丕賱賶 丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賵 丕賱丕鬲 氐賲丕亍 亘賱 丕鬲丕丨丞 丕賱賮乇氐丞 賱丕亘丿丕賳賴賲 賵丕匕賴丕賳賴賲 賰賷 鬲賯賵賲 亘賵馗丕卅賮賴丕 賰丕賲賱丞 賮賷 丕賲丕賳 鬲丕賲 亘丨賷孬 賷鬲爻賶 賱賴賲 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 毓賯賵賱賴賲 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲丕 丨乇丕 丿賵賳 丕卮賴丕乇 丕賱丕爻賱丨丞 丕賵 丕賱丨賯丿 丕賵 丕賱睾囟亘 丕賵 丕賱禺丿丕毓 賮丕賱丨乇賷丞 賴賷 丕賱睾丕賷丞 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞 賲賳 鬲丕爻賷爻 丕賱丿賵賱丞
丕賳 丕丿賲 賳賮爻賴 賯丿 爻賲毓 丕賱賱賴 丿賵賳 丕賳 賷乇丕賴 賮丕賱賱賴 賯丿 賰卮賮 賱賴 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 賮賴賲賴. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賷賴賲 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 禺賷丕賱賴賲 賱匕丕 鬲毓丿丿鬲 丕賱丕賱賴丞 賵賰丕賳 賱賰賱 丕賲丞 丕賱賴. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賷賰卮賮 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 胤亘賯丕 賱賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱賲爻亘賯 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賱丿賶 賳亘賷賴. 賱匕丕 鬲噩丿 賰賱 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賲鬲賮賯賷賳 賮賷 賳賯胤丞 噩賴賱賴賲 賱氐賮丕鬲 丕賱賱賴 賱丕賳 賴匕丕 賮賵賯 賯丿乇丕鬲 禺賷丕賱 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳
丕賳 丕賱賵丨賷 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇爻賱賴 丕賱賱賴 賰丕賳 賷鬲睾賷乇 丨爻亘 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賮賴賲 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賵丕乇丕卅賴賲 賵丨爻亘 丕賱夭賲丕賳 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳 賱匕丕 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賳賱鬲賲爻 賱丿賶 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賲毓乇賮丞 胤亘賷毓賷丞 丕賵 乇賵丨賷丞. 賱爻賳丕 賲賱夭賲賷賳 亘丕賱丕賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 丕賱丕 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘睾丕賷丞 丕賱賵丨賷 賵噩賵賴乇賴
丕賳 爻毓丕丿丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 鬲鬲賲孬賱 賮賷 鬲賲鬲毓賴 亘丕賱禺賷乇 賲毓 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賱丕 鬲賲鬲毓賴 亘丕賱禺賷乇 賵丕爻鬲毓亘丕丿賴 賱賱丕禺乇賷賳 賵賲賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 賲丨馗賵馗 賵賷鬲賲鬲毓 亘爻毓丕丿丞 丕賰亘乇 賲賳 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賲孬賱 賴匕丕 丕賱卮禺氐 賷噩賴賱 丕賱賳毓賷賲 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賷丿毓賵 丕賱賳丕爻 噩賲賷毓丕 丕賱賶 丕賱禺賱丕氐 賵賰賱 丕賱卮乇丕卅毓 丨賰賷賲丞 賵丕賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賱賷爻 爻賵賶 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賱賴 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賲賳匕 丕賱丕夭賱 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷爻鬲毓賷賳 亘賴丕 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賱賱賲丨丕賮馗丞 毓賱賶 亘賯丕卅賴 . 丕賳 丨賮丕馗 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 亘賯丕卅賴 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 毓賳氐乇賷賳 毓賱丞 禺丕乇噩賷丞 賵賴賷 丕賱丨馗 賮賰賱 賲丕 賷丨丿孬 賷爻賷乇 丨爻亘 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賱賴 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丕亘賱賴 爻毓賷丿丕 丕賵 卮賯賷丕 賰賲丕 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丨賰賷賲 賵丕賱毓賳氐乇 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賵賴賵 丕賱毓賱丞 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丕賱賷賯馗丞 賵賯丿乇丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丨賲丕賷丞 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 賴噩賲丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇 賵丕賱賵丨賵卮 賵賯丿 丕孬亘鬲 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賳 丕賷賯賳 賵爻賷賱丞 賱匕賱賰 賴賵 鬲賰賵賷賳 賲噩鬲賲毓. 賱匕丕 賮丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱匕賷 賷丨賰賲賴 丕賳丕爻 賷賯馗賵賳 賵毓賱賶 賯丿乇 賰亘賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丿乇丕賷丞 丕賰孬乇 丕賲丕賳丕 賵丕爻鬲賯乇丕乇 賲賳 賲噩鬲賲毓 賷丨賰賲賴 丕噩賱丕賮
丕賱賱賴 賱賲 賷賲賷夭 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 毓賳 睾賷乇賴賲. 賵丕賱賷賴賵丿賷 賱賷爻 丕賮囟賱 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷. 賰賱 丕賱丕賲賲 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴賲 丕賳亘賷丕亍 賵賴匕丕 亘卮賴丕丿丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱丿賳賷賵賷 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賵丕亍 賵丕匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賲丞 鬲丿毓賷 丕賱丕賮囟賱賷丞 賮賴匕丕 賱丕賳賴丕 賲賴鬲賲丞 亘乇賵丕賷丞 卮丐賵賳賴丕 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賱丕 亘乇賵丕賷丞 卮丐賵賳 睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱丕賲賲
丕賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賴賷 賯丕毓丿丞 丨賷丕丞 賮乇囟賴丕 亘毓囟 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱丕禺乇 賰賲丕 賷爻賷胤乇 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱丨氐丕賳 亘丕賱賱噩丕賲. 丕賳 賲賳 賷毓胤賷 賰賱 匕賷 丨賯 丨賯賴 禺賵賮丕 賲賳 丕賱賲卮賳賯丞 賷賮毓賱 匕賱賰 亘丕賲乇 賲賳 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賱匕丕 賮賴賵 賱賷爻 毓丕丿賱丕 賱賰賳 賲賳 賷賮毓賱 匕賱賰 丨爻亘 賲卮賷卅鬲賴 賲賳 丨賯賴 丕賳 賳爻賲賷賴 毓丕丿賱丕. 丕賳 乇睾亘丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賮賷 丕賱丕乇鬲賯丕亍 丕賱賶 丕賱禺賷乇 賴賷 賳丕亘毓丞 賲賳 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷. 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賴賵 禺賷乇賳丕 丕賱丕賯氐賶 賮丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱睾丕乇賯 賮賷 賱匕丕鬲 噩爻丿賴 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕亘丿丕 丕賳 賷鬲匕賵賯 賳毓賷賲 丨亘 丕賱賱賴 賵丨丿賴賲 賲賳 賷鬲賲鬲毓賵賳 亘氐賮丕亍 丕賱乇賵丨 賵丕賱匕賴賳 賲賳 賷乇賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞
丕賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賱賷爻鬲 囟乇賵乇賷丞 賱賱丕賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴. 丕賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵丨丿賴丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱鬲丕賲賱 爻鬲鬲賵氐賱 丕賱賶 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賳乇丕賴 賮賷 丕丿賲 丕賵 賮賷 丕賷 丕賳爻丕賳 丕禺乇. 賵賲毓 匕賱賰 鬲亘賯賶 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賲賮賷丿丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賮賰賱賲丕 毓乇賮賳丕 丕禺賱丕賯 丕賱賳丕爻 賵馗乇賵賮賴賲 丕夭丿丿賳丕 丨賰賲丞
丕賳 丕賱卮毓丕卅乇 賵丕賱胤賯賵爻 賱丕 鬲賲孬賱 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賵賱丕 鬲毓賳賷 卮賷卅丕 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴丕 爻賵賶 丕賳賴丕 鬲爻賲丨 亘鬲賰賵賷賳 賳馗丕賲 賷毓鬲亘乇 囟乇賵乇賷 賱賱禺賱丕氐. 丕賳 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 賱丕 賷鬲胤賱亘 卮賷卅丕 賱丕 賷亘賱睾賴 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵乇 賳賮爻賴. 丕賳 丕賱賳馗賲 賵丕賱丕賵丕賲乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿毓賷 丕賳賴丕 禺賷乇丞 賮賯胤 賱丕賳賴丕 鬲乇賲夭 賱禺賷乇賴丕 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賳 鬲囟賷賮 賰賲丕賱丕 賱賱丕匕賴丕賳 賱丕賳賴丕 鬲亘賯賶 賲噩乇丿 馗賱丕賱 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賳毓丿賴丕 賲賳 丕賱丕賮毓丕賱 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳亘毓 賲賳 丕賱匕賴賳
丕賳 丕賮囟賱 賴丿賷丞 賷毓胤賷賴丕 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴賷 賴賵 丕賱鬲丨乇乇 賲賳 毓亘賵丿賷丞 丕賱噩爻丿
賱丕 賷毓賱賲 賲賵爻賶 鬲丨乇賷賲 丕賱賯鬲賱 賵鬲丨乇賷賲 丕賱爻乇賯丞 賰賲丕 賷毓賱賲賴丕 丕賱賮賯賷賴 丕賵 丕賱賳亘賷 亘賱 賷丕賲乇賴賲 亘匕賱賰 賰賲丕 賷卮乇毓 丕賱賲卮乇毓 丕賵 丕賱丨丕賰賲 賵賱丕 賷孬亘鬲 鬲毓丕賱賷賲賴 亘丕賱丿賱賷賱 亘賱 賷賯乇賳 丕賵丕賲乇賴 亘丕賱鬲賴丿賷丿 賮鬲丨乇賷賲 丕賱夭賳丕 噩丕亍 賱賲氐賱丨丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賵賲賳賮毓丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 毓賰爻 丕賱賲爻賷丨 丕賱匕賷 噩丕亍 丕賱匕賷 賷亘卮乇 亘噩夭丕亍 乇賵丨賷 賱丕賳賴 賱賲 賷賰賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賯丕賲丞 丿賵賱丞
丕賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賷丨乇氐賵賳 毓賱賶 賲賳賮毓鬲賴賲 賵賱賰賳賴賲 賱丕 賷賮毓賱賵賳 匕賱賰 丨爻亘 賲丕 賷賲賱賷賴 毓賱賷賴賲 丕賱毓賯賱 亘賱 丨爻亘 賲丕 鬲賲賱賷賴 卮賴賵丞 丕賱賱匕丞 賵丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賳賮爻 賵賴匕丕 賷賮爻乇 賱賲丕匕丕 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱賲賲賰賳 丕賳 賷亘賯賶 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 亘丿賵賳 賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵爻賱胤丞 丕賲乇丞 賵賯賵丞 鬲賱胤賮 卮賴賵丞 丕賱賱匕丞 賵丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 囟丕亘胤 賱賴丕. 賱賰賳 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賱丕 鬲鬲丨賲賱 丕賱賯賴乇 賵丕賳 賷鬲賲 丕爻鬲毓亘丕丿賴丕 賮丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賲爻鬲毓丿 賱丕賱丨丕賯 丕賱囟乇乇 亘賳賮爻賴 賮賯胤 賲賳 丕噩賱 丕賱丨丕賯 丕賱囟乇乇 亘丕賱爻賷丿. 丕賳 丕卮丿 賲丕 賷丐賱賲 丕賳 鬲禺囟毓 賱丕賲孬丕賱賰. 賱匕丕 賷噩亘 毓賱賶 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賳 賷賯賷賲 爻賱胤丞 鬲賳亘孬賯 賲賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓 亘丨賷孬 賷賰賵賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓 賲賱夭賲賷賳 亘丕胤丕毓丞 丕賳賮爻賴賲 賱丕 丕賲孬丕賱賴賲. 丕賲丕 丕匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 賷丿 賮乇丿 賵丕丨丿 賮賷噩亘 丕賯賳丕毓 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丕賳賴 賮乇丿 賮賷賴 卮賷亍 丕爻賲賶 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞
毓賳丿賲丕 賷毓賲 丕賱噩賴賱 賷氐毓亘 丕賳 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 賷丿 丕賱噩賲賷毓. 丕賳 丕賱鬲毓賵丿 毓賱賶 丕賱毓亘賵丿賷丞 賷丿賮毓 丕賱賶 丕賳 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 賷丿 賮乇丿 賵丕丨丿 賯丕丿乇 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷爻賷乇 丕賱噩賲賷毓 賵毓賱賶 丕賳 賷爻賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵毓賱賶 丕賳 賷噩亘乇 丕賱噩賲賷锟斤拷 毓賱賶 丕賱禺囟賵毓 亘丕賱賯賵丞 賵乇亘賲丕 亘丕賱賱噩賵亍 丕賱賶 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱丕賱賴賷丞 丕賷囟丕. 丕賳 丕丿禺丕賱 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賷爻賲丨 亘丕賳 賷賯賵賲 丕賱卮毓亘 亘賵丕噩亘賴 亘丕禺賱丕氐 賱丕 毓賳 乇賴亘丞
丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賷卮賰賱賵賳 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱丕賰亘乇 賲賳 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賲禺丕胤亘丞 毓賯賵賱賴賲 賱丕賳賴賲 睾賷乇 賯丕丿乇賷賳 毓賱賶 乇亘胤 亘丿賷賴賷丕鬲 亘爻賷胤丞 亘亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟. 賱匕丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳禺丕胤亘賴賲 亘丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳 賱丕賳 丕匕賴丕賳賴賲 賱丕 鬲賯賵賶 毓賱賶 丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 亘賵囟賵丨 賵鬲賲賷夭. 賵賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賷毓乇賮賵丕 賰賱 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 鬲賰賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨乇賰 丕賱賳賮賵爻 丕賱賶 丕賯氐賶 丨丿 賵鬲丨孬 毓賱賶 丕賱胤丕毓丞 賵丕賱禺卮賵毓 賮賴賲 賷毓噩亘賵賳 亘丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 賵丕賱賳賴丕賷丕鬲 丕賱毓噩賷亘丞 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲賵賯毓丞 賱賱丕丨丿丕孬 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 丕毓噩丕亘賴賲 亘丕賱毓賯賷丿丞. 賵賴賲 亘丨丕噩丞 丕賱賶 賵毓丕馗 賷毓胤賵賳賴賲 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 鬲鬲賳丕爻亘 賲毓 鬲賰賵賷賳賴賲 丕賱匕賴賳賷
賳丕丿乇丕 賲丕 賷乇賵賷 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 丿賵賳 丕丿禺丕賱 丕乇丕卅賴賲 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賮賷賴. 賵毓賳丿賲丕 賷爻賲毓賵賳 乇丕賷丕 噩丿賷丿丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕乇丕亍賴賲 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 賷氐毓亘 毓賱賷賴賲 丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴 賮丕匕賴丕賳賴賲 鬲賳卮睾賱 亘丕乇丕卅賴賲 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 丕賱賶 丨丿 丕賳賴賲 賷丿乇賰賵賳 卮賷卅丕 賲禺鬲賱賮丕 鬲賲丕賲丕 毓賳 賲丕 爻賲毓賵賴. 禺丕氐丞 丕匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丕賲乇 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯 亘卮賷亍 賷鬲噩丕賵夭 賮賴賲 丕賱爻丕賲毓 賵亘賵噩賴 禺丕氐 丕匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴 賲氐賱丨丞 賮賷 丕賳 賷丨丿孬 卮賷亍 毓賱賶 賳丨賵 賲毓賷賳 賱匕丕 鬲噩丿 丕賱賳丕爻 丿丕卅賲丕 賷乇賵賵賳 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 丕賳胤賱丕賯丕 賲賳 丕賳賮爻賴賲
丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賱丕 賷丨乇氐賵賳 丕亘丿丕 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷毓賷卮賵丕 賵賮賯 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 亘丕賱毓賰爻 鬲噩丿賴賲 賷爻鬲亘丿賱賵賳 賰賱丕賲 丕賱賱賴 亘亘丿毓賴賲 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賵賷亘匕賱賵賳 賯氐丕乇賶 噩賴賵丿賴賲 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賲賳 丕噩賱 丕乇睾丕賲 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷賮賰乇賵丕 賲孬賱賴賲. 賵賴賲 賱丕 賷禺丕賮賵賳 賲賳 丕賱賱賴 賴賵 賷禺丕賮賵賳 賲賳 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賲賳 丕賳 賷鬲賲 丕孬亘丕鬲 禺胤卅賴賲 丕賵 賷鬲爻賱胤 毓賱賷賴賲 丕毓丿丕丐賴賲 丕賵 賷鬲賲 丕丨鬲賯丕乇賴賲. 賵賱賵 賰丕賳 賷丐賲賳賵賳 丨賯丕 賱賲丕 丕亘鬲丿毓賵丕 賵鬲氐丕乇毓賵丕 亘賰乇丕賴賷丞 賵鬲賲賱賰鬲賴賲 乇睾亘丞 毓賲賷丕亍 賴賵噩丕亍 賮賷 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲亘. 丕賳 丕賱胤賲賵丨 丕賱丕噩乇丕賲賷 賱丿賶 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賴賵 賲賳 噩毓賱 丕賱丿賷賳 賷丿丕賮毓 毓賳 亘丿毓 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳. 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賱丕 賷鬲亘毓 丕賱丿賷賳 亘丕賱毓賰爻 丕賱丿賷賳 賴賵 賲賳 賷鬲亘毓 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵賱賲 賷賰鬲賮賵丕 亘賳卮乇 丕賱賰乇丕賴賷丞 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿賷賳 亘賱 丕賱睾賵丕 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕丨鬲賯乇賵丕 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕囟丕賮賵丕 丕賱賶 賰賱 卮乇賵乇賴賲 禺乇丕賮丕鬲
睾丕賷丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賴賵 丕賱丨賯 賵睾丕賷丞 丕賱丕賷賲丕賳 賴賵 丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵丕賱胤丕毓丞. 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰丞 丕賱賲爻鬲禺賱氐丞 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱丕賷賲丕賳 丕爻丕爻賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵賮賯賴 丕賱賱睾丞 賵賴賷 鬲爻鬲賲丿 賲賳 丕賱賵丨賷 賵丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞
賮賷 毓丕賱賲 丕賱丕爻賲丕賰 賷丕賰賱 丕賱爻賲賰 丕賱賰亘賷乇 丕賱氐睾賷乇 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 鬲毓胤賷 丕賱丨賯 賱賰賱 賲賵噩賵丿 丨賯 胤亘賷毓賷 賵賲胤賱賯 毓賱賶 賰賱 賲丕 賷賯毓 鬲丨鬲 賯丿乇鬲賴 丕賷 丨賯 賰賱 賮乇丿 賷丿禺賱 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 賯丿乇丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞. 賵賴賳丕 賱丕 賳噩丿 賮丕乇賯丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞. 賵賲賳 賱賲 賷鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 亘毓丿 賮賴賵 賷毓賷卮 鬲丨鬲 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賮丕賱噩丕賴賱 賷毓賷卮 賵賮賯丕 賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱卮賴賵丞 賵賴賰匕丕 賷賰賵賳 丨賯 賰賱 賮乇丿 丨爻亘 乇睾亘鬲賴 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 賵賰賱 丕賱賵爻丕卅賱 賲鬲丕丨丞 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賲禺丕丿毓丞 丕賱氐賱賵丕鬲 賵賲賳 賷賲賳毓賴 毓賳 鬲丨賯賷賯 睾乇囟賴 賴賵 毓丿賵. 賱賰賳 賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳賳爻賶 丕賳 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賳 賷毓賷卮 賮賷 丕賲丕賳 賵亘丿賵賳 禺賵賮 賵賴匕丕 卮賷亍 賲爻鬲丨賷賱 丕匕丕 爻毓賶 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱賶 賮毓賱 賲丕 賷卮丕亍 賵賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賱丕 賷賵噩丿 丕賳爻丕賳 賷毓賷卮 丿賵賳 賯賱賯 丕賵 賰乇丕賴賷丞 丕賵 睾囟亘 丕賵 賲禺丕丿毓丞 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 丕賳爻丕賳 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱禺賱丕氐 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賷丐丿賷 丕賱賶 卮賯丕亍 丕賱亘卮乇. 丕匕丕 賱賲 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵丕 毓賯賵賱賴賲 賵馗賱賵丕 毓亘賷丿丕 賱囟乇賵乇賷丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵丕匕丕 賱賲 賷鬲賮賯賵丕 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲 賵丕匕丕 賱賲 賷毓丕賲賱賵丕 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 亘丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷乇睾亘賵賳 丕賳 鬲鬲賲 賲毓丕賲賱鬲賴賲 亘賴丕 賵賷丨丕賮馗賵丕 毓賱賶 丨賯 丕賱丕禺乇 賰賲丕 賷丨丕賮馗賵賳 毓賱賶 丨賯 丕賳賮爻賴賲 賵丕匕丕 賱賲 賷鬲乇賰賵丕 禺賷乇 丕賱賮乇丿 賱氐丕賱丨 禺賷乇 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 賵鬲賯亘賱賵丕 卮乇丕 賲賳 丕噩賱 鬲噩賳亘 卮乇 丕毓馗賲 賮爻賷馗賱賵賳 禺丕囟毓賷賳 賱卮賴賵丕鬲賴賲 賵賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞
丕賳 丕賮囟賱 丨賰賲 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賴賵 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷 丨賷孬 賷賮賵囟 丕賱丕賮乇丕丿 丕賵 丕賱丕睾賱亘賷丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賱丨丕賰賲 賷爻賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵賷爻賷乇 丕賱丿賵賱丞. 丕賳 丕賷 爻賱胤丞 鬲丨丕賵賱 丕賱鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱丕匕賴丕賳 賴賷 爻賱胤丞 馗丕賱賲丞 鬲賵氐賮 亘丕賱毓賳賮 賵丕賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱賮乇囟 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 賴賷 丕賳鬲夭丕毓 賱丨賯賴 賮賷 丕賳 賷賯乇乇 賲丕 賴賵 丨賯 賵賲丕 賴賵 亘丕胤賱 賵賴匕賴 丕賱丕賲賵乇 鬲毓鬲亘乇 丨賯丕 禺丕賱氐丕 亘賰賱 賮乇丿 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱丕丨丿 丕賳 賷爻賱亘賴 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賰賱 丕賳爻丕賳 賱丿賷賴 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 丕賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 乇丕賷賴 丕賮囟賱 賲賳 丕乇丕亍 丕賱丕禺乇賷賳 賮丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱丕匕賴丕賳 賱丕 賷賯賱 毓賳 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱丕匕賵丕賯. 丕賳 丕賱毓亘賵丿賷丞 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱賲賱賰賷 賮賯胤 賱賰賳賴丕 賲爻鬲亘毓丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷 賱丕賳 丕賱卮毓亘 丕賰賲賱賴 丕賵 賲毓馗賲賴 賷卮丕乇賰 賮賷 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷丞. 丕賳 丕賱睾丕賷丞 賲賳 鬲丕爻賷爻 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賱賷爻 丕賱爻賷丕丿丞 亘賱 鬲丨乇賷乇 丕賱賮乇丿 賲賳 丕賱禺賵賮 亘丨賷孬 賷毓賷卮 賰賱 賮乇丿 賮賷 丕賲丕賳 亘賯丿乇 丕賱丕賲賰丕賳 賵賷丨鬲賮馗 亘丨賯賴 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賱 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 丿賵賳 丕賱丨丕賯 丕賱囟乇乇 亘丕賱丕禺乇賷賳. 賵丕賱睾丕賷丞 賲賳 鬲丕爻賷爻 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賱賷爻 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丕賱賶 丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賵 丕賱丕鬲 氐賲丕亍 亘賱 丕鬲丕丨丞 丕賱賮乇氐丞 賱丕亘丿丕賳賴賲 賵丕匕賴丕賳賴賲 賰賷 鬲賯賵賲 亘賵馗丕卅賮賴丕 賰丕賲賱丞 賮賷 丕賲丕賳 鬲丕賲 亘丨賷孬 賷鬲爻賶 賱賴賲 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 毓賯賵賱賴賲 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲丕 丨乇丕 丿賵賳 丕卮賴丕乇 丕賱丕爻賱丨丞 丕賵 丕賱丨賯丿 丕賵 丕賱睾囟亘 丕賵 丕賱禺丿丕毓 賮丕賱丨乇賷丞 賴賷 丕賱睾丕賷丞 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞 賲賳 鬲丕爻賷爻 丕賱丿賵賱丞
May 23, 2023
Echt Bom. Een sterk staaltje tekstanalyse
April 17, 2022
A scion of Jewish refugees from the Iberian Peninsula living in the Dutch Golden Age, brought to print one of the most controversial texts of the early modern period. A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise by Benedict de Spinoza are one of the most controversial texts of its time and an unfinished鈥攂y the author鈥檚 death鈥攖ext that would have expounded upon the author鈥檚 political thoughts.
In his Theologico-Political, Spinoza argues what the best roles of state and religion concluding that a bit of democracy, freedom of speech and religion within a state that remains supreme in governance of the populace without the meddling of religious leaders. To bring about his conclusions, Spinoza critiqued the Bible, organized religion, and the meddling of philosophy and Scriptural interpretation. Yet Spinoza spent so much time in his criticism that his quick turn to his conclusions almost seemed like an add on even though this reader loved his conclusion. The unfinished Political Treatise dealt with how a monarchal or aristocratic form of government鈥攈is was just beginning his discussion of democracy at his death鈥攃ould function without devolving into tyranny and not violating the liberty of its citizens. How Spinoza鈥檚 ideal governmental forms of monarchy and aristocracy were constituted were intriguing, but the treatise unfinished status leaves a reader a lot of questions without how Spinoza would incorporate his previous ideas in Theologico-Political. Of the two treatises presented, the completed Theologico-Political is of better value yet is appears to harbor Spinoza鈥檚 resentment in falling out with the Jewish community of Amsterdam, however his ending argument for the secularization of state governance along with the freedom of speech and religion are highly valuable.
This book is important for those interested in political thought and the role of religion鈥攊f any鈥攊n government. While Benedict de Spinoza鈥檚 own personal issues due come through the text the Theologico-Political Treatise is important in the evolution of thought in freedom of religion.
In his Theologico-Political, Spinoza argues what the best roles of state and religion concluding that a bit of democracy, freedom of speech and religion within a state that remains supreme in governance of the populace without the meddling of religious leaders. To bring about his conclusions, Spinoza critiqued the Bible, organized religion, and the meddling of philosophy and Scriptural interpretation. Yet Spinoza spent so much time in his criticism that his quick turn to his conclusions almost seemed like an add on even though this reader loved his conclusion. The unfinished Political Treatise dealt with how a monarchal or aristocratic form of government鈥攈is was just beginning his discussion of democracy at his death鈥攃ould function without devolving into tyranny and not violating the liberty of its citizens. How Spinoza鈥檚 ideal governmental forms of monarchy and aristocracy were constituted were intriguing, but the treatise unfinished status leaves a reader a lot of questions without how Spinoza would incorporate his previous ideas in Theologico-Political. Of the two treatises presented, the completed Theologico-Political is of better value yet is appears to harbor Spinoza鈥檚 resentment in falling out with the Jewish community of Amsterdam, however his ending argument for the secularization of state governance along with the freedom of speech and religion are highly valuable.
This book is important for those interested in political thought and the role of religion鈥攊f any鈥攊n government. While Benedict de Spinoza鈥檚 own personal issues due come through the text the Theologico-Political Treatise is important in the evolution of thought in freedom of religion.
December 4, 2022
Me he le铆do solo los 3-4 煤ltimos cap铆tulos para un trabajo sobre la parte pol铆tica de Spinoza. Bastante chulo, aunque es un autor al que no leer铆a por gusto ni estando loco
October 17, 2018
賷賹毓鬲亘乇 賰鬲丕亘 乇爻丕賱丞 賮賷 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱賲賴賲丞 賮賷 賮賴賲 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賵賮賷賴 鬲賲 丕賱鬲賳馗賷乇 丕賱丕賵賱 賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷丞 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷丞 賲毓 鬲賮囟賷賱賴 賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賲丨丕賮馗丞.
賷賾禺氐氐 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賲賳 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 佟伽 賮氐賱丕賸 賱賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲貙賵丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱爻鬲丞 丕賱丕禺賷乇丞 賱賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賲爻鬲賳丿丕 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 毓賱賶 賲丕 鬲賲 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩賴 賲賳 丕賱賲丕爻亘賯.
賷亘丿兀 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 亘丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱丕賵賱 亘賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱賳亘賵丞 賵丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賮賷乇賶 丕賳 丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 賱賷爻賵丕 丕賮囟賱 賲賳 睾賷乇賴賲 亘丕賱匕賰丕亍 亘賱 丕賮囟賱 亘丕賱禺賷丕賱貙賮丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 賰兀亘賳丕亍 賱夭賲丕賳賴賲 賯丿 丿毓賵丕 賱賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘賲丕 丕賵丨賶 賱賴賲 賵賯丿 賯丿賲賵賴 丨爻亘 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲賴賲 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 賵丨爻亘 賮賴賲賴賲.賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱丕夭賱賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賵氐賵賱 賱賴 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 毓賳丿 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳貙賱賰賳 丕賱毓賵丕賲 鬲丨鬲丕噩 賳亘賷 賲賳賴丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 賱睾鬲賴丕 賮丕賱毓賵丕賲 丕賳賮毓丕賱賷賳 賵鬲丨賰賲賴賲 丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 賵賱丕 賷噩匕亘 丕賳鬲亘丕賴賲 丕賱丕 丕賱賳賵丕丿乇 賵丕賱毓噩丕卅亘 賵丕賱禺賵丕乇賯 賵賰賵賳 丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 毓馗賷賲賷賳 亘丕賱禺賷丕賱 賵丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 賮丕賳 賱賴賲 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 噩匕亘 丕賱毓賵丕賲 賵廿賯賳丕毓賴賲 亘丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱丕爻丕爻賷丞 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賲孬賱 丨亘 丕賱噩丕乇 賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱丕夭賱賷 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱毓丕乇賮貙賵禺氐丕卅氐 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賴賷 鬲禺賷賱 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲賵丨賶 賱賴賲 賰兀賳賴丕 賲丕孬賱丞 兀賲丕賲賴賲貙賵丕賱丌賷丞 賵賳夭賵毓賴賲 丕賱卮丿賷丿 賱賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱禺賷乇貙 賵賱賷爻 丕賱廿賱賲丕賲 亘丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賰賱賴丕 丕賵 鬲噩丕賵夭 匕賴賳 丕賱亘卮乇貙賮賷卮賷乇 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賱賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲禺丕賱賮 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 毓賳丿 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賲孬賱 丿賵乇丕賳 丕賱卮賲爻 丨賵賱 丕賱丕乇囟 賵睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲卮丕亘賴丞 賱賰賳 匕賱賰 賱賷爻 丕賱賲賴賲 (賮丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丿毓賵丕 賱賱胤丕毓丞 賵丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵丕賱毓賱賲)賵丕賱賲賴賲 賴賵 賲丕 賷丿毓賵丕 丕賱賳丕爻 賱賴 亘禺賷丕賱賴賲 丕賱禺氐亘 賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賮囟賱 賵毓賱賷賳丕 丕賳 賱丕 賳兀禺匕 賴匕賴 丕賱賳氐賵氐 亘賲噩賲賱賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賳賴丕 賰賱丕賲 丨賯賷賯賷 賲胤賱賯 亘賱 賷賮鬲乇囟 丕賳 賳爻鬲禺乇噩 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱賷爻乇丞 丕賱賯賱賷賱丞(賷賵噩丿 丕賱賴 兀爻賲賶 禺賷乇 賵乇丨賷賲貙丕賱賱賴 賵丕丨丿 賱丕 卮乇賷賰 賱賴貙丕賱賱賴 丨丕囟乇 賮賷 賰賱 賲賰丕賳 賵賷乇賶 賰賱 卮賷亍 賵賱賴 丕賱賯丿乇丞 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞貙毓亘丕丿丞 丕賱賱賴 鬲賰賵賳 賮賷 丕賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱丕丨爻丕賳 賵賱賷爻 亘賲丕 賷丐賲賳 亘賴 丕賱卮禺氐 賲賳 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 賵丕賳 賰丕賳鬲 氐丨賷丨丞 賵禺丕賱賮鬲 丕賮毓丕賱賴 賮賴賵 賱賷爻 亘賲丐賲賳 賵丕賱毓賰爻 氐丨賷丨 賵丕賱禺賱丕氐 賱賲賳 賷胤亘賯賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 賮賯胤貙賵兀禺賷乇丕 丕賱睾賮乇 賱賱鬲丕卅亘賷賳)貙賮爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賷禺丕賱賮 賰賱 賲賳 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 賵賷賴賵匕丕 丕賱賮禺丕乇貙 賮廿亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 丕賱匕賷 賷賲孬賱 丕鬲噩丕賴 丕禺囟丕毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱匕賷 賷賲丕孬賱 丕亘賳 乇卮丿 賮賷 丕賱丕爻賱丕賲 賮賷乇賶 毓丿丞 賲卮丕賰賱 賮賷 賲賳賴噩賴 賮賱賱兀禺匕 亘賲賳賴噩 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳貙賴賵 賷毓賳賷 丕賱鬲爻賱賷賲 亘丕賳 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賯丿 賰丕賳賵丕 賲鬲賮賯賵賳 亘賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 賵丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賵賰丕賳賵丕 賱丕賴賵鬲賷賷賳 毓馗丕賲 賵賮賱丕爻賮丞 賰亘丕乇貙 賵丕賳 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 賷賮鬲乇囟 丕賳 賲毓賳賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱亘乇賴賳丞 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳賮爻賴 賮爻賷賳鬲賴賷 賮賷 匕賱賰 亘丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱丕爻賯丕胤 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲賴 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賷賯囟賷 毓賱賶 丕賱孬賯丞 賮賷 賮賴賲 賲毓賳賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿胤賱丕賯丕 賵丕賷囟丕賸 爻賷噩毓賱 丕賱毓丕賲丞 亘賲賳兀賶 毓賳 賮賴賲賴 賵賴匕丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕賱睾丕賷丞 丕賱丕爻丕爻賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賴賷 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 賲毓 丕賱毓賵丕賲 丨鬲賶 賷氐亘丨賵丕 賲胤賷毓賷賳 賵匕賵 鬲賯賵賶 賵爻賱賵賰 噩賷丿.賵賷禺丕賱賮 賷賴賵匕丕 丕賱賮禺丕乇 (丕賱匕賷 賷賲丕孬賱 丕鬲噩丕賴 丕亘賳 鬲賷賲賷丞)丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賲囟丕丿 賱丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 丕賷 丕賳賴 賷賯丿賲 丕賱賳賯賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 賵囟乇賵乇丞 賳夭賵賱 丕賱毓賯賱 賱賱賳氐 賵丕賱禺囟賵毓 丕賱賰賱賷 賱賴 賮賯丿 乇兀賶 丕賳賴 賱丕 賷噩賵夭 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賷 賮賯乇丞 賲噩丕夭賷丕 賵賴賰匕丕 爻賳噩毓賱 兀賳賮爻賳丕 丕爻乇賶 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 賵禺賷丕賱 賳丕爻 亘爻胤丕亍 毓丕卮賵丕 亘丕賱兀夭賲賳丞 丕賱睾丕亘乇丞 賵爻賳禺丕賱賮 賳毓賲丞 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱鬲賷 賵賴亘賳丕 丕賷丕賴丕 丕賱兀夭賱賷 賵丕賱匕賷 賱賳 賷乇賷丿 賱賳丕 丕賳 賳賯毓 亘丕賱禺賱賮 丕賱毓賯賱賷貙丕賲丕 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賮賷乇賶 丕賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賰賵賳 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳賮爻賴 賲毓 兀禺匕 丕賱爻賷丕賯 賵丕賱丕毓鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 賱鬲賱賰 丕賱兀夭賲丕賳 賵丕賱廿賱賲丕賲 亘丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕丿乇丕賰 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 丕賱賷爻賷乇丞 丕賱賲賴賲丞 賮賯胤 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丿孬賳丕 賮賷賴丕 兀毓賱丕賴.
賵亘毓丿 賲賳丕賯卮丞 胤賵賷賱丞 賱賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 賵丿賵賱鬲賴賲 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賴丕 賷氐賱 丕賱賶 丕賳 胤亘賷毓丞 丨賰賲賴賲 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賯丿 賰丕賳鬲 賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賴賲貙毓賳丿賲丕 賰丕賳 賲賵爻賶 賴賵 丕賱賲賮爻乇 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賵丕賱賯丕囟賷 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賱丌賷丕鬲 丕賱賱賴. 賱賰賳 賮賷 毓丕賱賲 賲毓賯丿 賰夭賲丕賳賴 賷爻鬲賱夭賲 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱丿賵賱賷丞 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲丿賳 丕賱賰亘乇賶 賵睾賷乇賴 賮賴賰匕丕 賳馗丕賲 睾賷乇 賲賳丕爻亘 賵賷噩亘 丕賱賮氐賱 亘賷賳賴賲貙 賵賱賰賳 锟斤拷毓胤丕亍 丕賱丿賵賱丞 兀賷囟丕賸 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱卮毓丕卅乇 賵毓丿賲 丕賱爻賲丕丨 賱丕賲賰丕賳賷丞 丕賳 鬲禺賱賯 丿賵賱丞 丿丕禺賱 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賲丕 爻賷爻亘亘 匕賱賰 賲賳 夭賵丕賱 賱賱丕賲賳. 賵賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賳 丕賱鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賵丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 賴賵 賱賷爻 丕賲乇 賲賴賲貙丕賱賲賴賲 賮賯胤 賴賵 丕賱毓賲賱 亘丕賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱丕丨爻丕賳 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賲丿賶 氐丨丞 丕賵 禺胤丕 丕賱賮賴賲 '賱丕賴賵鬲賷丕' 賵賴賵 卮亘賷賴 賱賲丕 丿毓賶 賱賴 丕賱亘乇賵爻鬲丕賳鬲賷賳 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘賯 賱賴 鬲丨鬲 卮毓丕乇 (sola scriptura)
賵賷鬲賵氐賱 丕賱賶 囟乇賵乇丞 丕亘賯丕亍 丕賱丨乇賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷 賮賴賲 丕賱賳氐 賵丕賱睾丕賷丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賴賷丞 賰賷賮賲丕 兀乇丕丿賵丕 卮乇賷胤丞 丕賳 賱丕 賷禺丕賱賮賵丕 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賲乇 賵賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞貙賮丕賱丨乇賷丞 丨爻亘 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賴賷 丨乇賷丞 丕賱賮賰乇 賵賱賷爻鬲 丨乇賷丞 丕賱兀賮毓丕賱 賵丨乇賷丞 賲賳丕賯囟丞 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳貙 賵丨鬲賶 賱賵 禺丕賱賮 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賵 乇丌賴丕 賲禺丕賱賮丞 賱賱毓賯賱 賮賱賴 丕賳 賷禺亘乇 乇兀賷賴 賱賱賯丕卅賲賷賳 賵廿匕丕 賯丕賲 亘禺乇賯賴丕 賮賴賵 毓丕氐賷 賲卮丕睾亘 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯鬲賱貙賮賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賱賷丿丞 賱丕鬲賮丕賯 毓丕賲 亘賷賳 兀賮乇丕丿 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 亘丕賳 賷鬲賳丕夭賱賵丕 毓賳 爻賱胤鬲賴賲 賱氐丕丨亘 丕賱爻賷丕丿丞 丨鬲賶 賷毓賷卮賵丕 亘兀賲賳 賵丨乇賷丞(丨乇賷丞 亘賲毓賳賶 鬲丨賰賷賲 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱毓賷卮 丕賱丌賲賳 亘賱丕 乇毓亘 賵丨匕乇 卮丿賷丿) 賵丕賳 賱丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱爻賱賵賰丕鬲 丨爻亘 丕賱賲氐賱丨丞 丕賱匕丕鬲賷丞 賲賳丕賯囟丞 賱賱氐丕賱丨 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丕賱賲賳丕禺 丕賱毓丕賲 賵廿匕丕 鬲亘毓 賰賱 卮禺氐 匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞 爻鬲賳丨賱.
賵鬲賮囟賷賱賴 賱賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賷賳亘毓 賲賳 賰賵賳 丕賳賴丕 丕賱兀賯乇亘 賲賳 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賮賴賷 丨卮丿 噩賲毓賷 賷賲鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 賮賷 賲鬲賳丕賵賱賴 賵賮賷賴丕 賷胤賷毓 丕賱亘丕賯賷 爻賵丕亍 毓賳 丨亘 丕賵 禺賵賮 賵鬲賰賵賳 丕賱丨賰賵賲丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 鬲毓亘乇 毓賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓貙賵鬲賳亘毓 賲賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賳 賱丕 兀丨丿 賷丨賰賲 賱賵丨丿賴 賵丕賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 爻賷賰賵賳 賮賷賴 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱兀賳賵丕毓 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賮乇丕丿賴 賵賴賷 亘賳賷丞 丕賱噩賵賴乇 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱賰賳 賲毓 丕賱鬲丿賯賷賯 賮賷 賰賱丕賲 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賳噩丿 丕賳賴丕 賲丨丕賮馗丞 賵鬲鬲賯丕胤毓 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賲毓 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞.
The Review first published in 2016 Dec/25
Minor Editing 2018 Oct/7
賷賾禺氐氐 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賲賳 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 佟伽 賮氐賱丕賸 賱賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲貙賵丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱爻鬲丞 丕賱丕禺賷乇丞 賱賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賲爻鬲賳丿丕 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 毓賱賶 賲丕 鬲賲 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩賴 賲賳 丕賱賲丕爻亘賯.
賷亘丿兀 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 亘丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱丕賵賱 亘賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱賳亘賵丞 賵丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賮賷乇賶 丕賳 丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 賱賷爻賵丕 丕賮囟賱 賲賳 睾賷乇賴賲 亘丕賱匕賰丕亍 亘賱 丕賮囟賱 亘丕賱禺賷丕賱貙賮丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 賰兀亘賳丕亍 賱夭賲丕賳賴賲 賯丿 丿毓賵丕 賱賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘賲丕 丕賵丨賶 賱賴賲 賵賯丿 賯丿賲賵賴 丨爻亘 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲賴賲 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 賵丨爻亘 賮賴賲賴賲.賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱丕夭賱賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賵氐賵賱 賱賴 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱賳賵乇 丕賱賮胤乇賷 毓賳丿 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳貙賱賰賳 丕賱毓賵丕賲 鬲丨鬲丕噩 賳亘賷 賲賳賴丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 賱睾鬲賴丕 賮丕賱毓賵丕賲 丕賳賮毓丕賱賷賳 賵鬲丨賰賲賴賲 丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 賵賱丕 賷噩匕亘 丕賳鬲亘丕賴賲 丕賱丕 丕賱賳賵丕丿乇 賵丕賱毓噩丕卅亘 賵丕賱禺賵丕乇賯 賵賰賵賳 丕賱兀賳亘賷丕亍 毓馗賷賲賷賳 亘丕賱禺賷丕賱 賵丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 賮丕賳 賱賴賲 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 噩匕亘 丕賱毓賵丕賲 賵廿賯賳丕毓賴賲 亘丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱丕爻丕爻賷丞 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賲孬賱 丨亘 丕賱噩丕乇 賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱丕夭賱賷 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱毓丕乇賮貙賵禺氐丕卅氐 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賴賷 鬲禺賷賱 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲賵丨賶 賱賴賲 賰兀賳賴丕 賲丕孬賱丞 兀賲丕賲賴賲貙賵丕賱丌賷丞 賵賳夭賵毓賴賲 丕賱卮丿賷丿 賱賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱禺賷乇貙 賵賱賷爻 丕賱廿賱賲丕賲 亘丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賰賱賴丕 丕賵 鬲噩丕賵夭 匕賴賳 丕賱亘卮乇貙賮賷卮賷乇 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賱賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲禺丕賱賮 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 毓賳丿 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賲孬賱 丿賵乇丕賳 丕賱卮賲爻 丨賵賱 丕賱丕乇囟 賵睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲卮丕亘賴丞 賱賰賳 匕賱賰 賱賷爻 丕賱賲賴賲 (賮丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丿毓賵丕 賱賱胤丕毓丞 賵丕賱鬲賯賵賶 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵丕賱毓賱賲)賵丕賱賲賴賲 賴賵 賲丕 賷丿毓賵丕 丕賱賳丕爻 賱賴 亘禺賷丕賱賴賲 丕賱禺氐亘 賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賮囟賱 賵毓賱賷賳丕 丕賳 賱丕 賳兀禺匕 賴匕賴 丕賱賳氐賵氐 亘賲噩賲賱賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賳賴丕 賰賱丕賲 丨賯賷賯賷 賲胤賱賯 亘賱 賷賮鬲乇囟 丕賳 賳爻鬲禺乇噩 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷賲 丕賱賷爻乇丞 丕賱賯賱賷賱丞(賷賵噩丿 丕賱賴 兀爻賲賶 禺賷乇 賵乇丨賷賲貙丕賱賱賴 賵丕丨丿 賱丕 卮乇賷賰 賱賴貙丕賱賱賴 丨丕囟乇 賮賷 賰賱 賲賰丕賳 賵賷乇賶 賰賱 卮賷亍 賵賱賴 丕賱賯丿乇丞 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞貙毓亘丕丿丞 丕賱賱賴 鬲賰賵賳 賮賷 丕賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱丕丨爻丕賳 賵賱賷爻 亘賲丕 賷丐賲賳 亘賴 丕賱卮禺氐 賲賳 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 賵丕賳 賰丕賳鬲 氐丨賷丨丞 賵禺丕賱賮鬲 丕賮毓丕賱賴 賮賴賵 賱賷爻 亘賲丐賲賳 賵丕賱毓賰爻 氐丨賷丨 賵丕賱禺賱丕氐 賱賲賳 賷胤亘賯賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 賮賯胤貙賵兀禺賷乇丕 丕賱睾賮乇 賱賱鬲丕卅亘賷賳)貙賮爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賷禺丕賱賮 賰賱 賲賳 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 賵賷賴賵匕丕 丕賱賮禺丕乇貙 賮廿亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 丕賱匕賷 賷賲孬賱 丕鬲噩丕賴 丕禺囟丕毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱匕賷 賷賲丕孬賱 丕亘賳 乇卮丿 賮賷 丕賱丕爻賱丕賲 賮賷乇賶 毓丿丞 賲卮丕賰賱 賮賷 賲賳賴噩賴 賮賱賱兀禺匕 亘賲賳賴噩 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳貙賴賵 賷毓賳賷 丕賱鬲爻賱賷賲 亘丕賳 丕賱丕賳亘賷丕亍 賯丿 賰丕賳賵丕 賲鬲賮賯賵賳 亘賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 賵丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賵賰丕賳賵丕 賱丕賴賵鬲賷賷賳 毓馗丕賲 賵賮賱丕爻賮丞 賰亘丕乇貙 賵丕賳 丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 賷賮鬲乇囟 丕賳 賲毓賳賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱亘乇賴賳丞 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳賮爻賴 賮爻賷賳鬲賴賷 賮賷 匕賱賰 亘丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱丕爻賯丕胤 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲賴 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賷賯囟賷 毓賱賶 丕賱孬賯丞 賮賷 賮賴賲 賲毓賳賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿胤賱丕賯丕 賵丕賷囟丕賸 爻賷噩毓賱 丕賱毓丕賲丞 亘賲賳兀賶 毓賳 賮賴賲賴 賵賴匕丕 賷禺丕賱賮 丕賱睾丕賷丞 丕賱丕爻丕爻賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賴賷 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 賲毓 丕賱毓賵丕賲 丨鬲賶 賷氐亘丨賵丕 賲胤賷毓賷賳 賵匕賵 鬲賯賵賶 賵爻賱賵賰 噩賷丿.賵賷禺丕賱賮 賷賴賵匕丕 丕賱賮禺丕乇 (丕賱匕賷 賷賲丕孬賱 丕鬲噩丕賴 丕亘賳 鬲賷賲賷丞)丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賲囟丕丿 賱丕亘賳 賲賷賲賵賳 丕賷 丕賳賴 賷賯丿賲 丕賱賳賯賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 賵囟乇賵乇丞 賳夭賵賱 丕賱毓賯賱 賱賱賳氐 賵丕賱禺囟賵毓 丕賱賰賱賷 賱賴 賮賯丿 乇兀賶 丕賳賴 賱丕 賷噩賵夭 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賷 賮賯乇丞 賲噩丕夭賷丕 賵賴賰匕丕 爻賳噩毓賱 兀賳賮爻賳丕 丕爻乇賶 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 賵禺賷丕賱 賳丕爻 亘爻胤丕亍 毓丕卮賵丕 亘丕賱兀夭賲賳丞 丕賱睾丕亘乇丞 賵爻賳禺丕賱賮 賳毓賲丞 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱鬲賷 賵賴亘賳丕 丕賷丕賴丕 丕賱兀夭賱賷 賵丕賱匕賷 賱賳 賷乇賷丿 賱賳丕 丕賳 賳賯毓 亘丕賱禺賱賮 丕賱毓賯賱賷貙丕賲丕 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賮賷乇賶 丕賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賰賵賳 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳賮爻賴 賲毓 兀禺匕 丕賱爻賷丕賯 賵丕賱丕毓鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 賱鬲賱賰 丕賱兀夭賲丕賳 賵丕賱廿賱賲丕賲 亘丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕丿乇丕賰 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 丕賱賷爻賷乇丞 丕賱賲賴賲丞 賮賯胤 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丿孬賳丕 賮賷賴丕 兀毓賱丕賴.
賵亘毓丿 賲賳丕賯卮丞 胤賵賷賱丞 賱賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳 賵丿賵賱鬲賴賲 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賴丕 賷氐賱 丕賱賶 丕賳 胤亘賷毓丞 丨賰賲賴賲 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賯丿 賰丕賳鬲 賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賴賲貙毓賳丿賲丕 賰丕賳 賲賵爻賶 賴賵 丕賱賲賮爻乇 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賵丕賱賯丕囟賷 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賱丌賷丕鬲 丕賱賱賴. 賱賰賳 賮賷 毓丕賱賲 賲毓賯丿 賰夭賲丕賳賴 賷爻鬲賱夭賲 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱丿賵賱賷丞 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲丿賳 丕賱賰亘乇賶 賵睾賷乇賴 賮賴賰匕丕 賳馗丕賲 睾賷乇 賲賳丕爻亘 賵賷噩亘 丕賱賮氐賱 亘賷賳賴賲貙 賵賱賰賳 锟斤拷毓胤丕亍 丕賱丿賵賱丞 兀賷囟丕賸 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱卮毓丕卅乇 賵毓丿賲 丕賱爻賲丕丨 賱丕賲賰丕賳賷丞 丕賳 鬲禺賱賯 丿賵賱丞 丿丕禺賱 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賲丕 爻賷爻亘亘 匕賱賰 賲賳 夭賵丕賱 賱賱丕賲賳. 賵賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賳 丕賱鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賵丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 賴賵 賱賷爻 丕賲乇 賲賴賲貙丕賱賲賴賲 賮賯胤 賴賵 丕賱毓賲賱 亘丕賱毓丿賱 賵丕賱丕丨爻丕賳 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賲丿賶 氐丨丞 丕賵 禺胤丕 丕賱賮賴賲 '賱丕賴賵鬲賷丕' 賵賴賵 卮亘賷賴 賱賲丕 丿毓賶 賱賴 丕賱亘乇賵爻鬲丕賳鬲賷賳 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘賯 賱賴 鬲丨鬲 卮毓丕乇 (sola scriptura)
賵賷鬲賵氐賱 丕賱賶 囟乇賵乇丞 丕亘賯丕亍 丕賱丨乇賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷 賮賴賲 丕賱賳氐 賵丕賱睾丕賷丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賴賷丞 賰賷賮賲丕 兀乇丕丿賵丕 卮乇賷胤丞 丕賳 賱丕 賷禺丕賱賮賵丕 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賲乇 賵賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞貙賮丕賱丨乇賷丞 丨爻亘 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 賴賷 丨乇賷丞 丕賱賮賰乇 賵賱賷爻鬲 丨乇賷丞 丕賱兀賮毓丕賱 賵丨乇賷丞 賲賳丕賯囟丞 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳貙 賵丨鬲賶 賱賵 禺丕賱賮 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賵 乇丌賴丕 賲禺丕賱賮丞 賱賱毓賯賱 賮賱賴 丕賳 賷禺亘乇 乇兀賷賴 賱賱賯丕卅賲賷賳 賵廿匕丕 賯丕賲 亘禺乇賯賴丕 賮賴賵 毓丕氐賷 賲卮丕睾亘 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯鬲賱貙賮賷乇賶 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 丕賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賱賷丿丞 賱丕鬲賮丕賯 毓丕賲 亘賷賳 兀賮乇丕丿 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 亘丕賳 賷鬲賳丕夭賱賵丕 毓賳 爻賱胤鬲賴賲 賱氐丕丨亘 丕賱爻賷丕丿丞 丨鬲賶 賷毓賷卮賵丕 亘兀賲賳 賵丨乇賷丞(丨乇賷丞 亘賲毓賳賶 鬲丨賰賷賲 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱毓賷卮 丕賱丌賲賳 亘賱丕 乇毓亘 賵丨匕乇 卮丿賷丿) 賵丕賳 賱丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱爻賱賵賰丕鬲 丨爻亘 丕賱賲氐賱丨丞 丕賱匕丕鬲賷丞 賲賳丕賯囟丞 賱賱氐丕賱丨 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丕賱賲賳丕禺 丕賱毓丕賲 賵廿匕丕 鬲亘毓 賰賱 卮禺氐 匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞 爻鬲賳丨賱.
賵鬲賮囟賷賱賴 賱賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賷賳亘毓 賲賳 賰賵賳 丕賳賴丕 丕賱兀賯乇亘 賲賳 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賮賴賷 丨卮丿 噩賲毓賷 賷賲鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 賮賷 賲鬲賳丕賵賱賴 賵賮賷賴丕 賷胤賷毓 丕賱亘丕賯賷 爻賵丕亍 毓賳 丨亘 丕賵 禺賵賮 賵鬲賰賵賳 丕賱丨賰賵賲丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 鬲毓亘乇 毓賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓貙賵鬲賳亘毓 賲賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賳 賱丕 兀丨丿 賷丨賰賲 賱賵丨丿賴 賵丕賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 爻賷賰賵賳 賮賷賴 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱兀賳賵丕毓 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賮乇丕丿賴 賵賴賷 亘賳賷丞 丕賱噩賵賴乇 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱賰賳 賲毓 丕賱鬲丿賯賷賯 賮賷 賰賱丕賲 爻亘賷賳賵夭丕 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賳噩丿 丕賳賴丕 賲丨丕賮馗丞 賵鬲鬲賯丕胤毓 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賲毓 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞.
The Review first published in 2016 Dec/25
Minor Editing 2018 Oct/7
January 25, 2022
A fearless defense of rational religion that foresees, and indeed seems to be written for, our age of rational atheism and irrational faith. While I disagree with some of its central points - the idea that only reason can establish the truth, and that philosophy and theology have completely separate domains, with the reduction of theology to pure devotion and piety, of course being central - I'd still recommend this to anyone struggling with either how their religion can handle the onslaught of rational skepticism, or a scientific-materialist struggling with the question of how they can reconnect with their local extra-material traditions in the modern world. Unfortunately, the extensive rationalist biblical exegesis to which this book is primarily dedicated makes this not the most engaging read for a non-Christian, though I am still assuming that there is a whole academic field purely dedicated to applying Spinoza's hermeneutics of scriptural interpretation in other domains.
June 12, 2016
賱賵 賰丕賳 丕賱鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱兀匕賴丕賳 卮亘賷賴賸丕 亘丕賱鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱兀賱爻賳丞貙 賱賲丕 賵噩丿 丕賱丨賰賲 賷賵賲賸丕 賲丕 兀賷 賲卮賰賱丞.
October 13, 2015
If there ever was a philosopher capable of endearing himself to the devoted and skeptical alike, it was Spinoza. Through his courageous example, we can learn to love God/Nature/Truth, and love to use our reason.
The philosopher's work on the Bible is a groundbreaking exposition of the historical conditions that underlie religious texts. It explains the Bible in strikingly modern, critical terms, and in line with Spinoza's other work, it provides an interpretation of God in rational, naturalistic, pantheistic terms. These two aspects - Biblical criticism and original theological insight - ultimately lead to humanistic and liberal conclusions about Spinoza's ideal state, under which liberty of conscience and freedom of speech are to be firmly protected, so that the true religion of rational piety can be exercised without obstruction and persecution.
Those who are familiar with Spinoza will know that he takes God and religion very seriously. But they will also know that he opposes all forms of superstition, and sees no place for boring miracles, clever tricks and divine subterfuges. Unfortunately he sees the "popular imagination" as being prone to interpret everything according to their hazy notions of divinity. The masses are more impressed by magic tricks and wild claims than by the rational beauty of God's creation, and Spinoza saw the Bible as being tailored to their uncultured and unscientific tastes and worldviews. He laments the superstitions and weaknesses of the preliterate people for whom the Bible was written, but the same goes even for his contemporaries. The Theological-Political Treatise could best be understood as an attempt to illuminate the educated reader.
"... that every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks." - ch. XX
At its best, the book clearly exposes the all-too-human origins of prophecies and divine texts. He sees the Bible as a collection of inspired texts, encapsulating the history and theology of the Jewish nation, selected from a large selection of texts, some of which have not survived, bound together at a much later date by Jewish scholars, originally written by prophets and (even more likely) courtly historians. The language of the book(s) ranges from prosaic to poetic, reflecting the different styles and aims of their authors, and it is exceedingly difficult to tell which of its stories are supposed to be true and which are only metaphorical and allegorical (or downright false due to the poor scientific understanding of the time).
Spinoza argues that Moses was a lawgiver because he (re)founded the nation of Israel, and that is why he spoke of religion in terms of law, punishment, reward, nation-state, etc. Some of the other prophets, on the other hand, were people of "vivid imagination", who saw dreams and visions of God, and conveyed their theological insight in a way that was more metaphorical and poetic. Thus God was different things to different people, and Spinoza was acutely aware of the contradictions and tensions in the Bible.
Some of the most detailed and advanced arguments in the book deal with self-contradictory chronologies and other internal discrepancies, where Spinoza shows, step by step, that a literal reading of the Bible is doomed to fail. This is why critical Biblical scholarship owes a huge deal to Spinoza's groundbreaking work.
That said, the detail-oriented approach of the book can become heavy, at times. The philosophical insights of the book are copious, but they are hidden beneath a barrage of facts, explanations, textual exegesis and tangential asides. In addition, some of the Biblical scholarship has naturally been superseded long ago by more modern interpretations. Spinoza's far-fetched theories about the authorship of the books of Moses are hardly supported by most scholars today. But let me be clear: it is not like Spinoza sounds tame even by today's secular standards. Some of his arguments would probably shock even the most intrepid scholar.
So, although the book occupies a strange place, since it is neither as succinct or philosophically focused as the Ethics, nor as up-to-date and rigorous as contemporary scholarship on the Bible, it sheds crucial light on many important aspects of Spinoza's philosophy, and it offers a magnificent example of the power of reason, capable of loving God, applied to the very important and very contentious topic of popular religion.
By looking at Christianity critically, it allows us to discover what is perennially valuable in its message, and what is merely the accidental result - both understandable and lamentable - of its historical context.
The philosopher's work on the Bible is a groundbreaking exposition of the historical conditions that underlie religious texts. It explains the Bible in strikingly modern, critical terms, and in line with Spinoza's other work, it provides an interpretation of God in rational, naturalistic, pantheistic terms. These two aspects - Biblical criticism and original theological insight - ultimately lead to humanistic and liberal conclusions about Spinoza's ideal state, under which liberty of conscience and freedom of speech are to be firmly protected, so that the true religion of rational piety can be exercised without obstruction and persecution.
Those who are familiar with Spinoza will know that he takes God and religion very seriously. But they will also know that he opposes all forms of superstition, and sees no place for boring miracles, clever tricks and divine subterfuges. Unfortunately he sees the "popular imagination" as being prone to interpret everything according to their hazy notions of divinity. The masses are more impressed by magic tricks and wild claims than by the rational beauty of God's creation, and Spinoza saw the Bible as being tailored to their uncultured and unscientific tastes and worldviews. He laments the superstitions and weaknesses of the preliterate people for whom the Bible was written, but the same goes even for his contemporaries. The Theological-Political Treatise could best be understood as an attempt to illuminate the educated reader.
"... that every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks." - ch. XX
At its best, the book clearly exposes the all-too-human origins of prophecies and divine texts. He sees the Bible as a collection of inspired texts, encapsulating the history and theology of the Jewish nation, selected from a large selection of texts, some of which have not survived, bound together at a much later date by Jewish scholars, originally written by prophets and (even more likely) courtly historians. The language of the book(s) ranges from prosaic to poetic, reflecting the different styles and aims of their authors, and it is exceedingly difficult to tell which of its stories are supposed to be true and which are only metaphorical and allegorical (or downright false due to the poor scientific understanding of the time).
Spinoza argues that Moses was a lawgiver because he (re)founded the nation of Israel, and that is why he spoke of religion in terms of law, punishment, reward, nation-state, etc. Some of the other prophets, on the other hand, were people of "vivid imagination", who saw dreams and visions of God, and conveyed their theological insight in a way that was more metaphorical and poetic. Thus God was different things to different people, and Spinoza was acutely aware of the contradictions and tensions in the Bible.
Some of the most detailed and advanced arguments in the book deal with self-contradictory chronologies and other internal discrepancies, where Spinoza shows, step by step, that a literal reading of the Bible is doomed to fail. This is why critical Biblical scholarship owes a huge deal to Spinoza's groundbreaking work.
That said, the detail-oriented approach of the book can become heavy, at times. The philosophical insights of the book are copious, but they are hidden beneath a barrage of facts, explanations, textual exegesis and tangential asides. In addition, some of the Biblical scholarship has naturally been superseded long ago by more modern interpretations. Spinoza's far-fetched theories about the authorship of the books of Moses are hardly supported by most scholars today. But let me be clear: it is not like Spinoza sounds tame even by today's secular standards. Some of his arguments would probably shock even the most intrepid scholar.
So, although the book occupies a strange place, since it is neither as succinct or philosophically focused as the Ethics, nor as up-to-date and rigorous as contemporary scholarship on the Bible, it sheds crucial light on many important aspects of Spinoza's philosophy, and it offers a magnificent example of the power of reason, capable of loving God, applied to the very important and very contentious topic of popular religion.
By looking at Christianity critically, it allows us to discover what is perennially valuable in its message, and what is merely the accidental result - both understandable and lamentable - of its historical context.
Read
September 11, 2022Recommended! It contains a lot of references to the old testament that I found a bit hard to follow, but apart from that it's written in plain language and is easy to understand. Probably a good introduction to Spinoza's ideas
August 6, 2017
If you wanna read an extraordinary research on religion, prophets, miracle, scriptures based on philosophical arguments this book is the right choice. It is also an analysis of the bible by a science called philology.
Spinoza argues that the bible we see today is not the actual revelation of god rather it is just telling stories of the prophets after hundreds of years of their death.
And finally it talks about the style of ruling of Jews from the days of Moses and the factors that made their empire not c0llpase for more than a thousand years.
Spinoza argues that the bible we see today is not the actual revelation of god rather it is just telling stories of the prophets after hundreds of years of their death.
And finally it talks about the style of ruling of Jews from the days of Moses and the factors that made their empire not c0llpase for more than a thousand years.
September 1, 2014
賱賯丿 賯丕賲 丕賱丿賰鬲賵乇 丨爻賳 丨賳賮賷 亘賲噩賴賵丿 乇丕亍毓 賲賳 丨賷孬 鬲毓乇賷亘 賵 鬲賯丿賷賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 貙 賵 禺賱賯 爻丐丕賱 賲賴賴賲丕 賴賱 賲賳 丨賯賳丕 丕賳 賳賳馗乇 丕賱賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賳馗乇賴 毓賱賲賷賴責 貙 賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳 丕禺鬲賱丕賮賳丕 賲毓 賵噩毓賴 賳馗乇 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮廿賳賳賷 兀鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賳 丨乇賷賴 丕賱賮賰乇 賵丕賱鬲賮賱爻賮 賱丕 鬲賲孬賱 禺胤乇丕 毓賱賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱鬲賯賵賷 丕賵 毓賱賷 爻賱丕賲賴 丕賱丿賵賱 丨鬲賷 賵 賱賵 賯丕賲鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱丿賵賱 毓賱賷 兀爻丕爻 丿賷賳賷
September 25, 2024
Very interesting. Of course rather theoretical writings, but they are surprisingly modern, pro democracy.
July 12, 2019
The most radical kind of Liberalism you will ever be able to survey from 17th century thought, maybe
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.