Daniel

I think it's useful to see the reactions of the others to my posts. It tells me a lot about their point of view and whether or not they are someone who's opinions are credible.

Nothing that strong, certainly not visual. For me it's a feeling. The only way I can describe it clearly is that it's like an epiphany before it happens. It's like knowing I'm about to remember something I had forgotten, then ~poof~ , I have clear comprehension of a chain of causes and effects. It's like putting on a pair of perscription glasses and there's a clarity to the world that is very difficult to describe. But, it can be easily interrupted, and I can scramble it, if I'm not careful. So, recognizing that initial feeling is important, because then I can try and let it happen without any conscious interference.

I have researched this a bit, making YHVH into a man requires ignoring A LOT. For example, I think it's Eze 16? I think this is one of the favorite examples... ~checking~ Yes! Eze 16. So, in this chapter a metaphor is setup in the begininng of the chapter, but those who want YHVH to be a man, skip that introduction. Then, they also skip the end where the metaphor is made more obviously non-literal. If it's true that YHVH is a man, then, these authors, scholars, etc, would not need to skip things. They wouldn't need to exaggerate. But, if people want YHVH to be a man, for whatever reason, they won't care about what's actually written. All it will take is Daniel 7 where the ancient of days is on a throne. That's it. Done-deal. It won't matter that it's a dream. They have what they want, like you said at the beginning, a Sky-Daddy. OK. I think you know how I feel. There's nothing wrong with the fatherly image if it is a feeling in the heart. Like I said, there's a little telephone in there with a direct line to The Father. But intellectually it doesn't quite work.

All you have to do is look for yourself. But, I understand, it's very rewarding for some people to chose to ignore the original language and those of us who know it. Yes, scholars too. There's various reasons for it. Ultimately it's a person's choice. The word "scholar" does not mean "always correct" or lacking bias. One of the major red-flags is: anyone who says Elohim is plural for EL, doesn't actually know what they're talking about. Elohei is the singular of Elohim. It's easily confirmed. And yes, this becomes difficult, because a lot of smart credentialed people make this mistake. And yes, that means a lot of smart credentialed people don't know what they're talking about. But that's the way it goes with Judaism. That's why I'm used to this. It's a fact of life. Here is the singular of Elohim. If you look it up on the wiki-monster, it says exactly what I said: Although the word is plural, in the Hebrew Bible it most often takes singular verbal or pronominal agreement and refers to a single deity, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim Can you elaborate on the connection you're making here ^^ with the pluraity of Elohim? There is no plurality in this verse. What I was talking about is going to Genesis 1 and looking at the conjugation of all the verbs. This shows that there is something being described as a looking plural but acting in unison. But if you have a personal reason, or a religious reason, which prefers to consider God as a plurality, yes, there are plenty of people who love-love that idea. It's not actually what's written, but, so what? There's aslo incentive for some to point at the Jewish people and say negative things about us, "They think they're different from the polytheistic pagans, they're not. They're just like everyone, they're not different." { I'm exaggerating for effect, so you get the point }. So there's that incentive to make the OT into something it isn't. There's other reasons too. Trinitarians want very much to apply a pluraity to God in the OT. I can understand that. But, I would argue that the trinity just looks like a plurality, but isn't. Everything is working in unison. So, even the trinity agrees with what I'm describing.

Bias'd people hate to look at evidence. There is a reason that justice systems with lawyers are utilized in all civilized countries. It's fair. Goodwill towards friends is easily corrupted, but at least a person is not alone. I offer friendship to everyone, but I won't compromise on certain principles. It's a good thing.

Are you sure?

Two words do it for me: mystery-and-inspiration. This gets complicated. But, I can help a bit. Just to being with, the singular of Elohim, is Elohei, not El. The Plural of El = Ellim and that literally means "idols" And if one starts to look deep into the canaanite languge which is where these synergies come from, their God was probably named "IL" not "EL". But that's a huge long topic to discuss. Elohim is not always plural. And that is the point. It looks like a plurality, but it is infact singular. This is the root of Judaism. That is the innovation brought by Judaism in that time and place. All the others had their theology which wass a battle of divine powers, in conflict. But Judaism departed from this. Grammatically confirming that Elohim is actually singular when it is speaking of Godtakes a tiny bit of knowledge of language and looking at a good interlinear translation. Biblehub has it if you're interested. The best place to look is... in the beginning Genesis 1. The way to tell singular/plural in Hebrew is to look at the verb. The verb always agrees with the noun. If the verb is singular, its subject is singular. If the verb is plural, the subject is plural. In each and every verb in Gen 1, guess what? All singular. And so, when one gets to Deuteronomy, and Moses is telling the nation what they need to know before entering the land after being isolated in the wilderness, before mixing with the polytheistic other nations, what does he say? It is the proclamation that is known to virtually all Jews by heart. It is a lullaby we sing to our children. Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad ( Deut 6:4 ). What people don't know about this, is, it is a mystical unification. Eloheinu = "Our Elohim". The suffix is "nu", which means "our". It is saying that Our God which appears as a plurality, is the one and only YHVH, which is describing an eternal source beyond space and time. That is what YHVH means. Then later in Deutermonomy, Moses teaches something else, which is fundenmentally classically Jewish, he says that it was shown to them that there was no form of God, so that they would know that YHVH is their Elohim. There was not form so that they would know that God was an unknowable mystery. That's basically it, in a nutshell. God is a mystery. It is understood that God is without any and all forms. From the DDJ, we can really take this to heart. The DDJ and, Aristotle are the best sources for forms. When it is shown that God has NO form, that's a big mystery. Knowing it is Unknownable has profound implications.

It's much smarter to spread out and diversify, but, it takes bravery and cross-training to survive in isolation.

When the weak gather together, they are rounding themselves up.

This what I said: I think it's important to check multiple sources and not to ignore any perspectives. Although, if one of those sources is known to be a liar, then that should be considered as well. For those with reading comprehension difficulties: When a source is known to be a liar, then it is good to consider their perspective in reverse. This can be found in the art-of-war. I understand that reading comprehension can be difficult for children, and these are complicated nuanced subjects. And if a person is stuck as a child, it might even be painful to try to use their brain as an adult.

the dao says many things, the wise know when and how to apply them. that is the definition of wisdom.

it's natural to rally together with others who have the same weakness. that way one is not reminded of them so sharply.

I think it's important to check multiple sources and not to ignore any perspectives. Although, if one of those sources is known to be a liar, then that should be considered as well.

maturity and grace are the signs of real strength

the facts are there for all to see. it's as easy as looking in a dictionary, if one is not afraid to look in that specific dictionary. the facts shouldn't be scary. but, for some, I guess they are.

Agreed. I resolve not to answer to any criticism here. Not just in this thread. But the entire forum, in perpetuity. I just did that about 2 minutes prior to seeing your post. I will now go and delete it. Although, I reserve the right to comment on something I consider to be false, inaccurate, or worse. But I will not quote the person. I will simply state my position.

I think that it's easy to delude oneself for various reasons. The solution is to look at the facts. If the facts are readily apparent, and one or more parties are intentionally ignoring them, then they are deluding themself. There's also 3rd option. The individual avoids looking at the facts even though they are right in from them. This is not delusional but cowardly. Deep down, they are afraid of how it will feel if they are wrong, and what it means to their identity and their convictions. I have pity for all of them, but espectially the 3rd group.

No, I think each of you have your own reasons for doing what you do.

If you would read what I write there would be very little arguing. We clearly have differences on what is moral and proper behavior, but, the arguing can easily be remedied if you stop denying it, and just accept our differences as differences. There's some minor issues with the incorrect labeling of Qabbalah as Kabbalah, but, everyone does it. It's just a common mistake that people make when they don't know better. It wouldn't be a big deal until you say things like "don't you know what gnosis means?" When I was clearly saying I skip over that in favor of understanding ( which is a classic concept in Kabbalah ).

Great! If you go back and read what I wrote we agree. I'm not sure why you are arguing about this, other than you didn't actually read what I wrote. And that is characteristic of your criticisms in general. We actually agreed about the card too, if you read it. It's just some kind of spooky-scary thing to you and it doesn't bother me one bit. Same with the transformer. We agreed. But you wanted to swoop in as the hero and make me into a villain. Typical. If you don't read it, and you want to position your self as superior ( or you have nothing better to do ), then you just post somethiing negative. Bye,

Now. Where did this begin? Here is my reply to the OP, we were discussing a specific set of scriptures: a picture is best to illustrate it: Notice: Bob is interjecting into a conversation about a story where entry is prohibited as a result of angels with a spinning sword saying, or it's like a transformer. This comment is doomed for failure. It's completely out of context. Why is it doomed for failure? Because, I was talking about direct contact, which would produce annihilation. Bob says, "no... no, it's like a transformer." And I said, no, it can't be because there is no current... And it devolved from there, because Bob insisted there was current flowing through induction, which is false. I showed pitctures where it was false. I brought links showing it was false. But the whole time, Bob really-really wanted there to be current flowing through induction. Even though that doesn't fit in the conversation I was having, and, it's false from an electrical perspective. Should I have ignored bob? Maybe. I doubt he'll be replying to me anymore. So. Problem solved.

I am rather sure, that he said they were all connected and that current was flowing in-between. Direct contact was the point he wanted to make from the beginning. That was the whole point of interjecting in the first place. And that was the point he was arguing. And it was the reason for objecting to pictures showing the flow of the current. But it's easy to confirm. I'll go check.

Wrong again. Dude. It's right here.

Here is what I said. Your attention to detail is lacking. Since you don't know what I said, your objections are dismissed. Bye,

I have all the facts right now, and I'm standing up against 3 who disagree for some reason. The truth as popularity contest is flat-earth thinking. Nice job!