[Aekos]

Does each individual entity have sentience? Or is it all together one system with a sentience (pantheism)?

[noemon]

How can one assert anything regarding the first question? Normally, sentience is recognized when there is correspondence, and correspondence is recognized personally which is different for every human and subject to many individual parametres.

The second question is easily answered with a yes.

[Aekos]

Fair enough. Your argument is sound, it seems that we think similarly in theological terms (though I do question sentience in the universe).

[Sephardi]

Judaism is a descendant of the Canaanite religion so this is left over.

Wrong. Judaism didn't start in Canaan. It started in Mesopotamia with Abraham.

Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush

This was the Moses thing of course. How does it make sense if this meant "gods called unto him out of the midst of the bush". It does make sense if it translates to "God called unto him out of the midst of the bush".

[danholo]

Jewish apologetics claim that it is grammatically a plural form that is used as singular.

Jewish "apologetics" i.e. tradition has a lot to say about pretty much everything in the Bible. This is because Judaism stresses the importance of learning to not forget. Frankly, the text is worship because the text is pretty much existence itself. If we have no text, no tradition, no memory, we have nothing.

Yet of course we have to rely on linguistics to override centuries of tradition and learning! Why do I have to ask the Rabbi because I have noemon? I love it when esoteric text is explained by the outside. This is "how I see it and understand it" so it must be true.

[noemon]

You can utilize text just as well without idolizing it.

I said all religious texts adhere to the monotheistic view, 'all' means the Jewish one as well. That I say, despite the fact that linguistically the Hebrew text is the only one(that am aware of) that utilizes a plural noun to describe the first cause, and that I do because whatever the case, exegesis has the last word. The factual plurality of the noun is pointed out because it definitely is interesting, especially when combined with the assumed idolized infallibility of the text.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

The Holy Texts are said to be the word of God, and as God is infallible so are his words. There is no idol worship going on here.

[noemon]

That is idolizing anthropomorphism since god has anthropomorphic qualities(has human passions) and since this text is an image which is prescribed as divine(the very definition of idolatry according to the bible!) along with using the name of God in vain.

Funnily, no other text(image) is prescribed by canon law as divinely infallible, and none among those who are accused as idolaters.

The only canonical idolaters are Christians, Jews and Muslims, and that is why they are so insecure that accuse others, which again are the only ones who do that.

[danholo]

What is a "Canonical idolater"?

[noemon]

One who is an idolater by prescription like canon doctrine, not merely an opinionated chap.

[Todd D.]

"Sabbath" is an English (I think) word. It's not Hebrew. The original Ten Commandments said "Shabbas" or "Shabbat".

Which likewise is translated as "rest" (hence the reason we call a long break a "Sabbatical"). The point still stands that it's not referencing a specific day, it's remembering that all things are created by God.

"Out of the house of Slavery" literally means what it says.

Exactly. Literally it means out of the house of slavery of sin. The idea that it only refers to one specific time that God led humanity out of slavery really misses the point.

That's what the original meaning of it was. Whenever I see these priests on the TV on Sunday, they interpret everything from the Old Testament wrong, like just ignoring the real Hebrew meanings.

The "original" Hebrew meanings of the Messiah were clearly false, since they obviously weren't expecting Jesus. While I hold tremendous respect for the Jewish faith, I feel they are theologically wrong on a lot of issues, so referencing their exegesis isn't exactly a convincing argument.

[Sephardi]

Which likewise is translated as "rest" (hence the reason we call a long break a "Sabbatical"). The point still stands that it's not referencing a specific day, it's remembering that all things are created by God.

In the book of Genesis, it says that God created everything in six days, and took a rest on the seventh. This is what it literally says. Your priest might translate what it means for you, as in Catholicism and other religions, but this is what it literally says. Same with the house of slavery thing.

[Oxymoron]

it was a command to remember that all days are Holy.

Making them regular days, and making the word holy meaningless.


In Kabbala, God is not a individual rather it is the mutual life energy of the Universe.

[Todd D.]

In the book of Genesis, it says that God created everything in six days, and took a rest on the seventh. This is what it literally says. Your priest might translate what it means for you, as in Catholicism and other religions, but this is what it literally says. Same with the house of slavery thing.

Yes, it also says that God literally created everything in six solar days roughly 6,600 years ago. Not looking deeper is not appreciating the beauty in the narrative.

Recognizing the Sabbath is important, of course, but as Christ said, the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath. Arguing "It's Friday not Sunday you fool" is legalistic nonsense.

Not recognizing that God rescued EVERYONE from the slavery that is Sin is really missing the point.

Making them regular days, and making the word holy meaningless.

No, they are holy days, because they were created by God. Arguing that holiness operates on some supply and demand value ("more things holy = holy is meaningless") makes absolutely no sense.

In Kabbala, God is not a individual rather it is the mutual life energy of the Universe.

Which is precisely why Kabbala is nonsense. It's just paganism wrapped in trendy new clothes.

[Oxymoron]

No, they are holy days, because they were created by God. Arguing that holiness operates on some supply and demand value ("more things holy = holy is meaningless") makes absolutely no sense.

Since all days according to you are holy, what exactly does that mean? The what is an unholy day? If they are all Holy then they are infact regular days.Is Christmas Double Holy or something?

Which is precisely why Kabbala is nonsense. It's just paganism wrapped in trendy new clothes.

Well that is odd, because to me believing in a vengeful, jealous God who impregnates Virgins is rather more strange. You give God human traits, and you call Kabbala nonesence

[Todd D.]

Since all days according to you are holy, what exactly does that mean? The what is an unholy day? If they are all Holy then they are infact regular days.Is Christmas Double Holy or something?

It means precisely what I said, that all days are Holy. Days like Christmas, Easter, Passover, etc, are special because they are days that we remember special events in history, but it's not as if the actual 24 hour period in 2009 is any more or less holy than other days.

Well that is odd, because to me believing in a vengeful, jealous God who impregnates Virgins is rather more strange.

I never said it wasn't "strange". "Strangeness" is not an accurate measure of a faith's validity, since by definition anything supernatural (as faith tends to be) is going to be "strange". I didn't even call Kabbala "strange". I said it was nonsense.

You give God human traits, and you call Kabbala nonesence

More or less, yes. I believe in a personal, individual God. I believe that Jesus is God. The "life energy of the Universe" concept removes that personal aspect, and borrows heavily on ancient paganism, completely at odds with the Judeo-Christian concept of the God of Abraham, hence the reason I consider it to be nonsense.

[Oxymoron]

"life energy of the Universe" concept removes that personal aspect, and borrows heavily on ancient paganism, completely at odds with the Judeo-Christian concept of the God of Abraham, hence the reason I consider it to be nonsense.

Yet it is completely in line with the Big Bang and Science, hence the reason I consider it has more sence then Virgin births and so fort. A personal God is so basic and arrogant, it flies in the face of divinity. If God is an individual then he is just a Tyrant. I would like to think God is all and all is God, there is no Good or Bad; there is existing, expriencing, and learning.

[Todd D.]

Yet it is completely in line with the Big Bang and Science, hence the reason I consider it has more sence then Virgin births and so fort.

One can just as easily reconcile a personal God with "the Big Bang and Science", to a certain extent. Again on some level ANY supernatural being is going to appear to be at odds with "science", since by definition natural sciences deal with, shocker, the natural realm.

If God is an individual then he is just a Tyrant.

Uh, no. If God were a tyrant, He would not give us free will, He would not give us the choice to worship Him or not.

I would like to think God is all and all is God, there is no Good or Bad; there is existing, expriencing, and learning.

The idea that there is "no good or bad" is completely contradictory to any sense of morality, not to mention the more obvious examples of "bad" which are easily observable. If you "choose" to believe that nonsense, so be it.

[Oxymoron]

If Castro were a tyrant, He would not give Cubans free elections, He would not give Cubans the "choice" to Vote for Him or not.

If you "choose" to believe that nonsense, so be it.

I would say the same to you.

[noemon]

Oxymoron is not the person to defend the Kaballah or any such system or philosophy against some christian polemicist who hopes to score with some empty "paganism" meme and whose organization completely lacks spirituality but has historically being a break-off diocese that played Empire.

Arguing that an anthropomorphic god is superior to a non-anthropomorphic God is what is non-sense even from the catholic perspective.

And "God is all" does not condone nihilism, such bollock strawmen are laughable.