It isn’t wrong by any means, it just muddies the water of what is being discussed.
The “nature of God” was never clear water to begin with. It certainly muddies it versus the traditional Christian definition, but that is one paradigm out of literally thousands.
God is pretty much universally known to refer to a being.
Not really, unless by “being” you mean “thing that exists.”
Using it to refer to a non-being, to me, seems to be a purposeful attempt to not have to accept the challenges to the concept but continue on with what you believed anyway.
It’s a redefinition of the concept. Spinoza’s approach takes the elements of the nature of God that are agreed to by Christians and Jews, and demonstrates their incompatibility with “bearded dude in the sky”; that’s the point of the language, and I like it.
The “nature of God” was never clear water to begin with. It certainly muddies it versus the traditional Christian definition, but that is one paradigm out of literally thousands.
Not really, unless by “being” you mean “thing that exists.”
It’s a redefinition of the concept. Spinoza’s approach takes the elements of the nature of God that are agreed to by Christians and Jews, and demonstrates their incompatibility with “bearded dude in the sky”; that’s the point of the language, and I like it.