Daniel

In my opinion, this is the fundemental question brought in the original post: "isn’t it more apt to consider it as an experience of boundlessness, of formlessness, of unity, of mergence, of the infinite?" 100% yes. if this is acheived, the forms still exist, but they have become insignificant.

My very amatuer opinion is that there are trends demonstrated in nature that can act as signals for predicting what sort of actions and choices are in harmony with the dao. Observing cause and effect, action-reaction, in a person's life, and reflecting on the patterns observed in nature gives feedback on which choices and actions are in hamony and which are not. With practice and patience the signals are interpretted automatically and effortlessly resulting in life choices which are naturally in harmony with the dao. It sounds like your natural reaction to these disasters is benevolent. If so, then in a counter-intuitive manner, the natural disaster is good, if it is used to inspire goodness. Even for those who experience the disaster, there is an opportunity for growth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_growth

The example of a good-and-evil thing from this specific story is "double-speak" which is employed by Adam, Eve, the serpent, and even God in this story. I'll give the example of the serpent's double-speak, because, I think it's the easiest to show. In Gen 3, when Eve states the prohibition ( as she was told by Adam, presumably ) the serpent responds "לא־מות תמתון". This has a double meaing. It could mean, "No, surely-die" which is correcting Eve (technically she quoted the rule incorrectly ) and avoids any accusation of lying. Or, as it is translated into english, it could mean "Not surely-die" which is also true, because the prohibition wasn't given to Eve, but the serpent has no way of knowing this, it wasn't there when the prohibition was given. It's possible the serpenthad an accomplice hiding inplain sight. But that's not important right now. What's important is the serpent was able to speak truth and lies simultaneously, "double-speak". It's typical serpent behavior, speaking with the silvery forked tongue. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they both gain knowledge of how to use double-speak. This can be seen in the confessional. They also pass this knowledge to Cain who employs it against God to save his own life which ultimately leads to the corruption of everything that moves and the global flood. Abraham uses it later, so does Aaron, so does Moses.

The conventional answer in Judaism is this is a legal phrase showing a liability for death at the hands of heaven, not an earthly court. Other examples: Gen 20:7, 1 Sam 14:14, 1 Kings 2:37. Some people take it to another level. In hebrew, mot-tamoot. The m-v-t (to die) verbal root is repeated twice. When a word is repeated it's for emphasis. For verbs it indicates certainty. For nouns it indictes "each and every" Examples: Exo 23:4, Num 27:7 ( verbs repeated) Exo 36:4, (noun repeated ). The tav prefix on the second repetition makes it imperfect ( future tense ). So, the penatly for the prohibition ( which was only incumbent on Adam, and said nothing about eating the fruit, only prohibited eating FROM the tree ) was "certain death, body and soul, total annihiliation, at the hands of heaven, your name will be erased from the book of life as if you were never born." Yimach Sh'moh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yimakh_shemo ^^ clearly a determinate proclaimation ^^ clearly a determinate proclaimation There is no reason to abandon determinate thought, unless.... (One) cultivates right concentration, which is based on detachment, on dispassion, on cessation, which ends in self-surrender, which plunges into the Lifeless, which has the Lifeless for its aim, which has the Lifeless for its end. For those who are deeply suffering, or wish to avoid personal resposibility for themselves and for others... Sure! There's a way to do that! If I'm ever in extreme pain, I'll know what to do. But I'll retain my personal responsibility, thank you very much. If this is your ideal, then that is what you have determined.

And that's the problem with the assumption that the knowledge gained was a net loss that resulted in a "fall". So, I don't read it that way.

According to the story, determinate thought pre-existed eating from the tree of knowledge-of-good-and-evil. The serpent asks: "Although... Did God tell you not to eat from any tree in the garden?" Eve answers confidently ( but inaccurately ) "we can eat from any tree but the not the fruit from the of the tree in the middle of the garden... we cannot eat from it and not touch it else we die." So before they ate the so-called forbidden fruit, they had determinate thought. They were designed with it. There is nothing wrong with it. And, if the forbidden fruit did introduce determinate thought processes, the tree would have been named differently. It would be a disjunctive OR, not a conjuctive AND: the tree of knowledge-of-good-OR-evil. Good-OR-Evil is determinate. Good-AND-Evil is a paradox. Knowing good-or-evil is human. Knowing good-and-evil simultaneously makes one god-like because any rule can be flipped and reality can be rewritten per their command. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good-and-evil; and now, what if he puts forth his hand, and takes also from the tree of life, and eats, and lives forever; The serpent ate from the tree already. It used knowledge-of-good-and-evil to trick her. Once Eve ate the fruit, she knew she could give it to Adam and he could avoid the death penalty. The serpent's desire for eve corrupted its thinking, and it missed the a key detail which foiled its plan. Very-unpopular-opinion: Eve is the heroine in this beautiful love story, but everyone blames her for a fall from grace which was actually intended by God all along. What people don't realize is, all of this, Gen 2 and 3 happened on Day 6. After the serpent is cursed to the ground ( on its belly ), and Adam and Eve are ejected from the garden...then.... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. And on the 7th day... rest.

It's nice to meet you, Unota. I look forward to reading what you write when you choose to do so.

Thank you for posting this.

5 things take care of you: what you eat what you drink how you sleep how you move how you connect with others

Chains connecting heaven and earth in stained glass. Mid-1800s Orthodox temple NYC. There were chains everywhere. On the undersides of the arches even. The star itself is interconnected triangles pointing up and down. If you want to go deep... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_hishtalshelus

Jewish tradition argues about anything and everything. The bodily ressurection is listed in Ezekiel 37 and Isaiah 26:19. Both of those can be read as allegory or hyper-literally. So there's plenty of reason to debate it. Certainly from a modern point of view. BTW, one of the main distinctions between the pharisees and the sadduces was about reincarnation. The problem comes in, because Rambam ( Maimonides ) is claiming that this is allegory in **contradiction** to the sages of the talmud (BT ketubot 111a) who say it's literal without bringing any reasons for taking the dissenting view, while at the same time, claiming that he is recieving the ruling from the sages of the talmud and discouraging others from studying it. This among other things led to grave concerns and criticisms that Rambam is making changes to the tradition not reporting on it or codifying it. Big picture: the purpose is to bring heaven to earth. Conventionally, traditionally, this was imagined to be literal. In Hebrew it's included in our prayers, recited 3 times daily. "He who makes peace in the heavens, bring peace on us..." Or as Jesus prays "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." So there's a parallel reflective reality between the divine realm and the material world. Actually many many reflections. There are "Heavens" fixed in the divine realm, this produces the potential for "heavens" in the material realm. As above... so below... it's a repeated motif in the Zohar and other places. Rambam's approach is, basically reductive. Reduce all the miracles to natural occurances. Everything thats written are gross exaggerations. If the Jewish people can cultivte their intellect and change their minds then the "world to come" or "Heaven on earth" will be a perceptual shift. Following the commandments are secondary to acheiving this mindset which he calls "knowing God" or "knowledge". It's a very greek influenced philosophy. The highest virtue is knowledge. And those without it are... let's just say... judged harshly by him. Rambam was clearly brilliant, but also a racist pig. In that time and in that place, it's not uncommon. But a pig is still a pig. This reduction renders heaven on earth nothing more than a place where the jewish people are able to dwell safely and securely in the promised land without interference from outsiders. And the Jewish people will cooperate with each other lacking nothing. The rest of the world will continue in what ever state of chaos that they are accustomed to... or not... it's not his concern. Rambam doesn't fully explain how this intellectual shift among the Jewish people coming into alignment with God's divine intellect will establish saftey and security for the Jewish people. But that's what he says will happen. The conventional / traditional view is different. Miracles are real, magic happens. When the Jewish people do what they're supposed to do individually they recieve heaven on earth individually. When they collectively do what they're supposed to do in unison, everyone benefits, heaven is brought down to earth for everyone, Jew and gentile alike. The intellectual connection to each commandment, which Rambam makes primary and the exclusive purpose of the commandments, is considered an important part of a process. Not the solitary goal. It's a much loftier aspiration, but the reward is greater as well. Rambam is making the goal more acheivable, but reducing it as well.

Thank you,

Thank you Bindi, If possible, I would very much appreciate reading more about the neidan child.

Here's what I was talking about with Rabbis being avoided for source criticism: "The European Enlightenment in the eighteenth century saw the rise of critical biblical scholarship, and the nineteenth century witnessed in particular the development of source criticism, in which midrashic approaches were generally rejected in favor of a theory of composite authorship" The Compostion of th Pentateuch - Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis - Dr. Joel Baden - Harvard Divinity And then as the book continues, any and all Rabbinic input is considered "midrashic". Here's a few links regarding the reaction to the rationalist approach in the 1200s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonidean_Controversy https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/vol-13-no-1-jan-2022/four-critiques-of-crescas-against-maimonides-and-the-relationship-of-intellect-and-practice-in-religion/ The second link above is really good because Rambam's extreme emphasis on "knowing" is detailed as well as the connection to Greek wisdom which would have been prohibitted by the traditionalists ( kabalists ). Kabalah literally means a "recieved" tradition.

I like New York in June. How about you?

Not absolutely different. But yes different. Are you saying there are no outliers among the majority of peoples and cultures? We haven't really gotten into history yet. But it's not about "chosen" or "special". It's more like stubborn. "Stiff necked" is the phrase used in the bible around a dozen times. What's described in history is a small group of scribes and priests who were the true-believers, and the common people were assimilating into the indigenous religious practices of the region.

Would you please restate your point so i can stay on topic? Divine law, not natural law. Essentially the divine-monach got angry. But they were ale t break those laws for 600+ years without any real consequences. Many or most did not. In any large group there will be outliers. Hebrews were consistenly the outliers. Sure they are That's witchcraft, wizardry, sorcery, invoking angels and demons. That's why it's forbidden. Generally speaking the ancient mind classified natural/spiitual forces as in conflict and chaos. At some point that paradigm was shifted to divine providence. According to the hebrew myths, this was always known by a small minority. Here's a good article about it surveying the various viewpoints. If you don't want to read it, in summary, there is a natural law which governs in general. Then there is also a divine law which governs in particular. When the divine law is followed, blessings are produced. When it is not followed, the blessings cease and the individul or group is left to the forces of nature, cause and effect. https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/80723/jewish/Brief-on-Hashgachah-Pratis.htm That looks pretty new. They don't last forever. The oldest scrolls are the DSS from 100BCE. In order to confirm that the ancient hebrews had the samemindset as the others, one would need something goind back to 2000BCEish. All I'm saying is that PHD and "Scholar" does not mean that their conclusions are good and reliable. The point is, if Judaism and the ancient hebrews are not being considered, outliers, iconoclast, and polemic, then the conclusion is liable to be faulty. Without evidence that these people were following the conventional practice of all the others, there is a consistent pattern by these people to go against the trend no with it.

Before discussing it, i think it's important to confirm that we both agree on these as wrongful actions. It's a crazy world, I appreciate the confirmation. Regarding "Why did the Lord permit it?" That's pages and pages and pages of typing. Rules change, they get updated. Even in the ultra orthodox world. It's written in Deut 17 that the "judges of the day" decide whether for strictness or for mercy. A whole law can be abandoned if it's harmful. It's different in America. Many people left the church and christianity because of it.

No problem... hopefully it wasn't to much work for you to unpack it. OK. Still holding the previous parameters... Transcendent God = ineffable, beyond words, beyond human conception, or imagination. But! it's still an agent, a deity. Immanent God = directly invests itself in the material world, and individuals are immersed in it. Spiritual God = a deity which is defined in terms of spirits and souls: immaterial, vital, inter-connected, inherently unique essence. Again, the African San tribe is good for this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_religion#Trance. Hunting... tracking.... indwelling of a spirit. It's primitive, in a good way. So for Christianity, there is Immanent and spiritual. Modern Judaism rejects that, generally. That would be theosophy: how the miracles were performed. I'm talking about how their god is described differently in each of the big-three. It sounds like you reviewed Exo 3? The description for God there is invested in the physical world, Moses is immersed in the experience, then God reveals itself to be completely beyond all time and space. Transcendant+Immanent, kinda-sorta Panentheism, but God is an agent, a being, with preferences and a plan. Phillipians 2... 6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. Psalm 22 is **how** he emptied himself, **because** equality with God cannot be grasped/seized. It needs to be invested. Spirit indwelling or resting on an individual or group. When Joseph and Daniel are interpretting dreams, this is how God is being described and introduced as interacting with the material world through a medium or a channel. That's a totally different animal as far as I'm concerned.

The Rabbis who codified the law believed that the transgressions might have been the cause, or they thought it was a prophecy that was playing out in Deut. 28. There is an effect for these actions, but it's not a 1-to-1 cause and effect, like boiling water or making ice. According to the story, the 1st temple was destroyed for 3 reasons. Murder, Immoral sexual behavior, and idolatry. It took around 600 years for the consequences of these actions to occur. Transgression and consequence are complicated concepts. OK... I can use other words. Decree, ordinance, commandment.... it doesn't change that these are not considered to be laws like natural laws. That sets up the human as a deity over the natural law. That's not what the ancient hebrews did. I know you're not attacking it. The point is, those ideas were rejected by the ancient hebrews. I understand that academics and scholars say a lot of things about Judaism, but a lot of it is bunk. All one needs to do to confirm it is research all the so-called canaanite/ugarite/akkadian/babylonian connections to the hebrew myths. It's all ridiculous. Hebrew scripture was written on animal hide, using a specific ink, it's intended to be perishable so that it, the scripture, does not become an idol. Scholars simply don't have anything on which to base their assumptions. The dating methods used are circular logic. Often they don't even know the hebrew mythology well enough to make any judgements at all, and virtually none of them know the hebrew language. They refuse to consult with Rabbis, of course, because they're not sciencey.

What's most important is whether or not you and I agree that these things, as written, are wrongful actions. After that, what's important is whether or not the vast majority of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, world-wide, agree that these things, as written, are wrongful actions. Beyond that, perhaps it's useful to explore what's going on with these things. I consider them political not theological where religion is being used/abused to seize power and resources, and used/abused to influence and manipulate people. It's not just "abrahamics" that do these things. But, a "law-giving-executive" deity is fertile ground for this sort of manipulation and power-grab. Yup. Those are the rules. No offence? None taken! Sincerely. If this is what your friend told you about their practice, then this is what your friend wants you to know about their practice. I don't see much benefit from getting involved in that. Ah. For a spiritual christian experience, I recommend an American vibrant black church and let the spirit move you. Also, I've met at least two christians who completely turned their lives around as a direct result of the indwelling of the holy spirit and donning Jesus as their armor. Regarding Catholics, I think there's good and bad like everythng else. It's a huge institution, which instituional problems. And the child-sex-abuse scandal cannot and should not be ignored. As far as the connection the Pope has with the adherent, again, could be good "spiritual", could be bad "spiritual". It all depends on the spirits that are involved.

Yes, in that the divine presence rests or dwells among those who are learning and participating. But there is a hard break between that presence and God. The idea that is generally brought by modern Judaism and othodox ( not ultra-orthodox ) is similar to the neti-neti concept of the ineffable brahman. The word "dwelling" or "resting' cannot be applied to absolute trascendence because those concepts are comprehensible by the human mind. As soon as it is imagined, it is "false" by default because the absolutely transcendent cannot be conceived by a human mind. Conceived, literally. If God is imagined as "dwelling" or "resting" that individual has given "birth", "concieved" a "god" of their own imagination. I'm describing a theological concept, I was asked for my take on the "differences in the way God is described by the big-three". "Spiritual" as a theology, as a god-concept, would be describing a theos ( Θεὸς ) in terms of spirits and souls. Part of this idea includes an inherent spirit-to-spirit or soul-to-soul connection. And it is not limited to human souls/spirit. Speaking only for myself, when I have a "spiritual" feeling when doing something "Jewish", it's feeling that spirit-to-spirit connection. But that connection could be to the "spirit" of the words I'm speaking, to the "spirit" of the ritual I'm engaged in, the "spirit" of the other people who are particiapting with me, the "spirit" of the other people who are particiapting globally and historically, the "spirit" or inner meaning and significance of the practice, etc. It keeps going, on and on and on. Ultimately for me, the divine presence is being revealed, and I have an opportuity to connect with it, but, in a very limited way. If I'm fortunate, in a profound and awe inspiring way. But I don't think it's limited to that, for example, the same connection and revelation happens for me when someone wishes me a good morning, if it's spoken sincerely. Or even if they share a recipe. But none of that is a theology. This phenomena is included in the theology of "spirit", it is predicted by it, explained by it, and accurately modeled by it, but, the theology isn't required. The theology is just a construct for something immaterial, vital, essentially unique, and inherently inter-connected. This same theology can be applied much much further though. And that's where Christianity picks up. But, it is somewhat precarious. Immanence, for me, would be God investing itself, immersing itself. The proclaimation "God is one" I think is more about absolute authority, Adon Olam ( Eternal-Hidden Master ). The 5th line describes it well I think. There's different types of oneness. חד, יחד, אחד. The proclaimation is echad with an aleph and a segol. Both are significant. Technically the aleph implies an inherent never ending duality, seperation, reflection, and connection. It's constructed with two yuds reflected and inverted on opposite sides of the vav, which is surprisingly "yin-yangy" for lack of a better word. So, the oneness brought by that proclamation is a unification, not a nullification. Generally, non-duality, would be bitul. Still a really cool concept, super useful, as long as it isn't plucked from its context and applied as a moral construct. Here we certainly agree. Although, I would use different examples. My favorite is "Mazel-tov!" Technically that's praising an angel.

Brevity sacrifices specificity. If discourse is forced to be brief, generalizations and undeclared assumptions are a given and should accepted without any faults. A complete list of the defintions, distinctions, and assumptions will be long. These are complex concepts. Regardless: Top 2 assumptions: The requested information regarding differing god-concepts/description among the "big-three" was *actually* theological and not political. The person I was replying to is speaking the same language as I am. Even though this is generally assumed when speaking english, it is not always true for complex theological concepts. Definitions and distinctions, briefly, not a "self-published" book: Theology of Moses = Trascendant+Immanent = Gen 14, the blessing by Malchi-tzedek and Abram's response. Gen 18, Exodus 3, ( Hebrew language knowledge is needed ). Jeremiah 23:24. Isaiah 6:3. And virtually the entire book of Deuteronomy, specifically 6:4, of course, but also, 4:35 and 39, which happen to be two of the key verses for the "dati" movement. Some Hebrew knowledge is needed for those two verses. The mid chapters of Isaiah are well known for their descriptions of a transcendant god. A good jumping off point is chapter 40. These culminate in chapter 45. Theology of Jesus: Immanence = John 1+John 14+ phillipians 2, and probably others. Theology of Muhammad Transcendant: 99 names of Allah Spiritual: Pretty much anytime "spirit of..." or "holy spirit" is mentioned in the OT. A list of occurances is below in a spoiler. The best examples, imo, are Exo 31:3 and Exo 35:31. Although, it's good to have some familiarity with African religions, the "san" people are good examples. The levant is rather close to Africa, and there is a shared heritage.

You're very welcome. Ye of little faith. I believe I can move that mountain. Or, conversely, if i choose to, I can curse that little fig tree for not producing the desired fruit at the time and place of my choosing. Each of these are topics of their own; they can be harmonized; it takes work. There's several ways to do it. The easiest is simply listening to each group. They all say the other two have corrupted their own scripture. Christian's call it "spiritual blindness', but it's basically the same thing. Muslims say, "the scribes changed the scripture." It's really no different than the intra-faith conflict between denominations. Sunni v. Shia, trinitarian v. unitarian, Orthodox v. Reform v. Chassidic. Each intra-faith squabble involves claiming that some humans are fussing with the "scripture", but, they would not accuse each other of not worshipping the same god. The same thing is happening inter-abrahamic-faith but on the macro scale. So, it's the same "god-concept" different "scripture". Yes. Which is why I propose that what I'm saying is only important for historical perspective, or maybe-maybe useful for reverse engineering what was achieved by each group. It's a huge topic. Perhaps for a different venue. Although I love-love talking about it. Feel free to send me a private message if you want to talk more about it. It's written there is one-"Torah" for both the stranger-in-a-strange-land and the native-born. ( Exodus 12:49 ). There's a lot of facinating stuff in each group's scripture. But I must admit, reading the Qur'an in english gives me a headache. I think it's true what muslims say, "It's a totally different experience in arabic hearing it and understanding it from a muezzin." I haven't spent any time with them. Perhaps I'll do that soon. Thank you as well for sharing your thoughts. Sure. And it's within my own communty as well. I have a dear friend coming from a Reform background who loves to point that out. What I enjoy is reflecting on the fact that we agree on right and wrong thought speech and action. But he is supporting that with a negative role model brought in the "Torah" of reform Judaism, and I am supporting it with the postive role model of the "Torah" of chassidic Judaism. And both "Torah's" have the same original language, but we are both reading it completely differently, and yet, magically, we're coming to the same conclusions which inform our individual life choices.

Yes, but these are not natural laws. They're laws from their benevolent monarch. Not mixing wool and linen; not plowing with mixed cattle, no grafting trees, or mixed vineyards... plus a whole host of rather strange ones. There's a couple of different models for that. One is chukim vs. mishpatim. One is Noahide vs. Mosaic law. Basically, the chukim have zero obvious benefit or harm. If I eat pork, or don't eat pork, nothing good or bad can be directly tied to it. There is something happening, but, it's not obvious and it's not a 1-to-1 cause-effect. And, according to mosaic law, non-Jews can eat pork without any problems at all. Gauranteed. So, there is no natural ( non-religious ) law that governs the benefit or harm from eating pork. Same with wool+linen, but even more-so. On the other hand, caring from the widow and the orphan ( classic misphat ), would be a natural law whose benefit is obvious. From a more "noahide" perspective, setting up a justice system has obvious benefits for anyone.