is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It was for the Nazis. And it is according to Judaism.

Then by that logic the Nazis had good sense on their side — a Jewish sensibility! — when they exiled or eliminated those with *Jewish blood*.

Thus the only way to eliminate *Judaism* is to eliminate the Jew since ‘converting out’ changes nothing essential.

Now you’ve really got yourself in a trap! But more accurately you accentuate how strange Jewish identification is.

All of this naturally was and is created and maintained by a priestly class who ventriloquize into that terrifying figure you refer to as HaShem.

HaShem himself was likely vacationing …

Why it's not for you, I guess you'll have to say.

At a certain point it becomes an absurd identification.

If you read with any care what I write you could have, quite on your own, have understood why I reject that identification.

But you are a religious zealot so many things can be forgiven you!

[Immanuel Can]

Thus the only way to eliminate *Judaism* is to eliminate the Jew since ‘converting out’ changes nothing essential.

Sometimes, I wonder about you...

Why it's not for you, I guess you'll have to say.

At a certain point it becomes an absurd identification.

Why?

If you read with any care what I write you could have, quite on your own, have understood why I reject that identification.

Maybe. But you right so much blather that getting through it all is a bit like digging through a dunghill to find a single coin. I guess I just don't have the shovel on hand to deal with the mountain you throw up.

So save me the trouble, and say it plainly.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If it is all the same I think I’ll keep on as I have been.

At a certain point it becomes an absurd identification.

Why?

Sometimes, Immanuel, I really wonder about you.

[puto]

Cynicism meaning mocks truth and is closed-minded. Cynicism meaning denies rather than analyzes. This message board is not skeptical but an opinion. Writing, your anger is easy because you are close-minded.

[mickthinks]

If a person, for example, reads about the "finger of God", and decides that God literally has a "finger", then, in fact, this is the deification of the material, that is, idolatry.

Actually, it's not. It's just a metaphor.

Here is further clear evidence of Immanuel Can’s crass contrarianism (or is it common stupidity?—you choose).

Hint: to take something literally is to discount its being a metaphor. It’s as if IC doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “if”.

[puto]

Studying, ethics was one of my favorite branches of philosophy. One type of resistance that is common on this message board is anger. The type of resistance is not ignorance because you want to know, but most on this board do not know how to read or write.

[Janoah]

It's just a metaphor.

It is important that you agreed that there is something in the Torah that should not be taken literally.


***Nature is a contingent and created thing, made out of the tohu va bohu {תהו ובהו} of the infinite, by HaShem.***

and this too should not be taken literally.
Science deals with the origin of nature. And the Torah should be understood on the basis of scientific knowledge.



***And while man's hands are physical, God's are immaterial***

And this is the most interesting thing, how do you imagine the immaterial, speaking in scientific language?

[Immanuel Can]

It's just a metaphor.

It is important that you agreed that there is something in the Torah that should not be taken literally.

Every Christian, and I dare say every Jew as well, knows that there are things that are metaphors in the Bible. Where have you been living, that you didn't know that?

***Nature is a contingent and created thing, made out of the tohu va bohu {תהו ובהו} of the infinite, by HaShem.***
and this too should not be taken literally.

Most rabbis will disagree with you. So will I. So will Torah itself. It's a claim of fact, and has no metaphor in it. The claim that God is the Creator is perhaps the most fundamental confession of Judaism, in fact.

***And while man's hands are physical, God's are immaterial***
And this is the most interesting thing, how do you imagine the immaterial, speaking in scientific language?

I can't figure out what your question means. Why cannot the transcendent Creator speak into that which is His Creation? We ought to be far more surprised to be told He couldn't than to think He could.

[Janoah]

***Nature is a contingent and created thing, made out of the tohu va bohu {תהו ובהו} of the infinite, by HaShem.***
and this too should not be taken literally.

Most rabbis will disagree with you. So will I. So will Torah itself. It's a claim of fact, and has no metaphor in it.

The most authoritative rabbi, Maimonides, says exactly what I said, but in a much more pointed form,
"First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal. … The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even entirely to abandon and reject the principles of our Faith. It is therefore right to abstain and refrain from examining this subject superficially and unscientifically. We must blame the practice of some ignorant preachers and expounders of the Bible, who think that wisdom consists in knowing the explanation of words, and that greater perfection is attained by employing more words and longer speech. It is, however, right that we should examine the Scriptural texts by the intellect, after having acquired a knowledge of demonstrative science, and of the true hidden meaning of prophecies."
(Guide for the Perplexed, by Moses Maimonides, Part II, CHAPTER XXIX)
https://sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp116.htm


***The claim that God is the Creator is perhaps the most fundamental confession of Judaism, in fact***.

The creation of the World in time is not an important principle in Judaism; moreover, Maimonides explains that the existence of God must be proved on the basis of the eternity of the World,
"For it is well known to all clear and correct thinkers who do not wish to deceive themselves, that this question, namely, whether the Universe has been created or is eternal, cannot be answered with mathematical certainty; here human intellect must pause. …
For this reason you will find in my works on the Talmud, whenever I have to speak of the fundamental principles of our religion, or to prove the existence of God, that I employ arguments which imply the eternity of the universe."
(Guide for the Perplexed, by Moses Maimonides, Part I, CHAPTER LXXI)
https://sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp081.htm

***We ought to be far more surprised to be told He couldn't***
I have already mentioned, the One couldn't anything, because He is only actual and not potential

[Immanuel Can]

***Nature is a contingent and created thing, made out of the tohu va bohu {תהו ובהו} of the infinite, by HaShem.***
and this too should not be taken literally.

Most rabbis will disagree with you. So will I. So will Torah itself. It's a claim of fact, and has no metaphor in it.

The most authoritative rabbi, Maimonides, says exactly what I said, but in a much more pointed form,
"First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal."

Apparently, he does not say what parts he regards as literal and what not. Perhaps you know where he has, and can say.

However, were he to deny the creation was an action of God then there would no longer be any distinctive value to Judaism, as it would be reduced to a mere case of cultural phenomenology. And all cultures have their own phenomenology. Absent HaShem, there would be nothing special about Judaism.

the One couldn't anything, because He is only actual and not potential

I can't imagine who this "One" you're speaking of is actually supposed to be. It's certainly not HaShem. And it's not anything I recognize from Christianity, which holds that God is triune -- perhaps you're getting it from Unitarianism or some other religion, I suppose. And what you mean by "actual not potential" is also obscure. Maybe you can explain your reasoning here.

[Janoah]

Most rabbis will disagree with you. So will I. So will Torah itself. It's a claim of fact, and has no metaphor in it.

The most authoritative rabbi, Maimonides, says exactly what I said, but in a much more pointed form,
"First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal."

Apparently, he does not say what parts he regards as literal and what not. Perhaps you know where he has, and can say.

Maimonides says in the quote I quoted that what is contrary to scientific evidence is not to be taken literally.


***However, were he to deny the creation was an action of God then there would no longer be any distinctive value to Judaism,***

The value of Judaism could be discussed in a separate topic, but anti-science is not the value of Judaism.


***And what you mean by "actual not potential" is also obscure. Maybe you can explain your reasoning here.***

The explanation comes from Aristotle and Maimonides confirms it,
the One is immutable, but potentiality provides for the possibility of change, therefore potentiality is not inherent in the One.
I would compare like this,
the Regularity of nature is unchanging, therefore it is actual and not potential.

[Immanuel Can]

The most authoritative rabbi, Maimonides, says exactly what I said, but in a much more pointed form,
"First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal."

Apparently, he does not say what parts he regards as literal and what not. Perhaps you know where he has, and can say.

Maimonides says in the quote I quoted that what is contrary to scientific evidence is not to be taken literally.

Well, then, he's got a serious problem: because "scientific evidence" changes. What that argument does is merely claim that Torah is fallible, but that science is infallible. However, no scientist would agree: science is premised hypotheses with can be tested and be supported or undermined by evidence. Old scientific theories, like the Ptolemaic universe, can be replaced by better cosmologies, each in sequence; and the process is never complete, and never stops.

Maimonides, then, would be saying, "Don't believe Torah; believe mutable theories men are producing about physical phenomena instead."

But there's also a serious category error in that argument, too: for while science deals strictly with physical phenomena, what are we to do with metaphysical phenomena, like consciousness, or morals, or rights, or rationality...these are pre-scientific, in the sense that doing science requires us to apply them, but science doesn't provide them to us -- it presupposes them and depends on them instead.

If you're rightly presenting Maimonides, then, he's making an exceedingly foolish argument.

***However, were he to deny the creation was an action of God then there would no longer be any distinctive value to Judaism,***
The value of Judaism could be discussed in a separate topic, but anti-science is not the value of Judaism.

You've missed the point, I think. What I mean is that Judaism can no longer claim any distinctive relation to truth. No longer is it the religion of the one true God, since God did not create the world, and thus does not exist to choose a particular people. There was no dispensation of truth to Moses, then, and no Promised Land. There was no Law, no commandments and no sacrifices that did anything more than incinerate a few hapless sheep. The Temple and Jerusalem were no more important than a taco stand in New Jersey. The whole package of Jewish fundamentals is out the window the first minute you posit that HaShem does not exist and is not the Creator and Authority in the universe.

Happy with that conclusion?

***And what you mean by "actual not potential" is also obscure. Maybe you can explain your reasoning here.***

The explanation comes from Aristotle and Maimonides confirms it,
the One is immutable, but potentiality provides for the possibility of change, therefore potentiality is not inherent in the One.

That's an obvious error by way of amphiboly. "Immutable" is a word with various connotations. It can mean "unchanging and consistent in his moral nature and consistent in his actions," or "utterly incapable of movement." It's not logically legitimate to deduce from the one term to the other.

The God of Torah is "immutable" only in the first sense. In fact, Torah holds that God does, in fact, perform specific actions, and so is not "immutable" in the total sense. He is said, for example, to have produced the plagues that issued in the liberation from Egypt, to have divided the Red Sea, to have instituted a covenant with Abraham, to have given tablets to Moses, to have appointed Saul as king...and so on, and so on, and so on...

So, if you're interpreting it right, then both Aristotle and Maimonides are against Torah, and against HaShem. Can you manage to stay on their side, then?

[Janoah]

What that argument does is merely claim that Torah is fallible,

no, your conclusion is caused by your erroneous idea of the Torah

***but that science is infallible***

no, scientific models, theories, representations - change, it goes without saying.
Along with the change in scientific ideas, the understanding of the Torah may change.


***for while science deals strictly with physical phenomena, what are we to do with metaphysical phenomena, like consciousness, or morals, or rights, or rationality...these are pre-scientific, in the sense that doing science requires us to apply them, but science doesn't provide them to us -- it presupposes them and depends on them instead.***

Science may well deal with these concepts, and deals with them. For example, your namesake wrote a scientific treatise "The Critique of Pure Reason", Baruch Spinoza wrote a scientific treatise "Ethics", Aristotle - "Metaphysics".
A Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) is the most common degree at the highest academic level, awarded following a course of study and research.
(Although I doubt that most of them have an idea about philosophy).

***What I mean is that Judaism can no longer claim any distinctive relation to truth.***

Oh, here it is necessary to deal with the central question, what is the truth?
Here Jesus told parables, and where is the truth?

***In fact, Torah holds that God does, in fact, perform specific actions, and so is not "immutable" in the total sense.***

Maimonides explains the "doings" of God as regular natural processes, and I fully agree with Maimonides in this.
Everything that happens, happens in accordance with the law of nature.
Have you seen a violation of the laws of nature in your life?

[Immanuel Can]

...the understanding of the Torah may change.

"The understanding of" anything may change. That's not the question, though. It's whether the Torah itself changes.

Science may well deal with these concepts, and deals with them. For example, your namesake wrote a scientific treatise "The Critique of Pure Reason", Baruch Spinoza wrote a scientific treatise "Ethics", Aristotle - "Metaphysics".

These are not scientific treatises, so they don't serve your purpose here.

***What I mean is that Judaism can no longer claim any distinctive relation to truth.***
Oh, here it is necessary to deal with the central question, what is the truth?

Not yet.

It's only necessary at this moment to ask whether or not that the Torah is what the Torah claims to be, or if it's telling lies.

***In fact, Torah holds that God does, in fact, perform specific actions, and so is not "immutable" in the total sense.***

Maimonides explains the "doings" of God as regular natural processes,

That's a rather silly thing to do. If they are "natural processes," then they aren't in any sense divine actions. They're just "natural processes," that happen without any particular action on the part of God. But Torah claims that God very definitely takes particular actions...so Torah denies that God is "immutable" in the sense you want to suggest.

Have you seen a violation of the laws of nature in your life?

Indeed, I may have. But let's say I haven't, just for the sake of argument.

Torah says there were about 430 years between the covenant with Abraham and the giving of the Law to Moses. That means that for quite a few intervening generations, at least five or six, say, there were no evident miracles done, prior to the plagues and the Red Sea miracle. That would mean that generations of Jewish people never saw anything but "natural processes."

What part of that would imply that God was not involved in the Exodus miracles?

[Harbal]

Breaking news.

A portion of house brick weighing 2.2 kilograms came through the Secretary of State for Transport’s bathroom window in the early hours of last Thursday morning. The police are offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of the fucker that threw it.

I'm missing Agent Smith.