I'll let him speak for himself...

I’ve already referred to Maimonides. Go read the 13 principles of faith (which were heretical in his time) and see which of those harkens to Ya. — Ennui Elucidator

The incorporeality of God and the eternity of God, which combined sound like omnipresence to me, are two of Maimonides principles. Look, I do not claim to be an expert on Judaism, and have myself ultimately had to resign myself to atheism, but I have many Jewish friends, and I don't know one religious Jew who does not concieve of God to be omni -present, -scient, and -potent. For chrissake, they will not even write the word "God" for fear of giving offense!

I don’t think he cares, but maybe he will read about Jewish pluralism in the modern world. Much easier to simply treat “Jews” as a monolith. — Ennui Elucidator

Monolith, is it? Pluralism, is it? Now, you are unfairly putting words into my mouth. I thought we were talking about the conception of God amongst the ancient Israelites and the religious (particularly Orthodox) Jews of today, not about (for example) Noah Harari's conception of God... Of course, there are secular Jews, even atheist Jews like Harari, but they lie somewhat outside of the instant discussion, right? I would have thought this tacitly understood.

Maimonides

Pluralism, is it? Now, you are putting words into my mouth. I thought we were talking about the conception of God amongst the ancient Israelites and the religious (particularly Orthodox) Jews of today, not about Noah Harari's conception of God... Of course, there are secular Jews, even atheist Jews like Harari, but they lie somewhat outside of the instant discussion, right? I would have thought this tacitly understood. — Michael Zwingli

And even atheist Orthodox Jews, but who is counting?

What is understood is that you are making ahistorical claims about what people believed over 3,500 years of a developing religion and using it for the purpose of defining away a substantial sect of Jews that do not believe the “essence” of their faith is a misattributed god concept. If you want to claim that the essence of Judaism is something, I’d at least like you to be in the ballpark.

And who cares about Harari? Have you read Buber?

Harari — Ennui Elucidator

Israeli historian. :rofl:

Another guy from Israel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Mizrachi

Let's not forget Hasidim!

I almost posted the Oven of Akhnai for them, but then I didn’t. Actual religious thought is too much trouble to understand prior to criticizing it.

Not to mention Rashi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tosafot

And even atheist Orthodox Jews, but who is counting? — Ennui Elucidator

I am utterly unfamiliar with that, but upon consideration, can imagine it, and can only imagine the difficulty of that situation.

...using it for the purpose of defining away a substantial sect of Jews... — Ennui Elucidator

Such a "defining away" of a segment of the Jewish population is not my intention. Rather, I was focused on addressing the origin of the concept of the "limitless" God.

...that do not believe the “essence” of their faith is a misattributed god concept. — Ennui Elucidator

Regarding this, I would be interested to read any exposition which you might provide. I find this highly interesting.

Here is a simple one on Reconstructionism.

You are welcome to read about theology in that context if it interests you. But I am not trying to push Judaism. I am simply trying to bring nuance to a conversation about religion that seems heavily focused on the “Abrahamic” faiths as understood primarily through a secular Christian lens.

@Wayfarer, for his part, tried to redirect to a non-Abrahamic religion to see how it has traditionally conceived of factual claims. If we had a more religiously diverse crowd on the forum, I’m sure you’d have many expressions of how people understand their sacred myths in literal (i.e. factual) or non-literal ways.

Another useful concept: Hashem

I am utterly unfamiliar with that, but upon consideration, can imagine it, and can only imagine the difficulty of that situation. — Michael Zwingli

This is excerpted without attribution because it is an old joke that involves all sorts of Jews. It can be told better or worse.

There is a famous joke about two men, Goldberg and Schwartz, who are walking to synagogue. They are stopped along the way by someone who asks them where they are going. They casually tell the man that they are both on their way to synagogue.

The man responds, “Goldberg, I know why you go to synagogue. You believe in God, and you’re an observant Jew.” Then he adds, “But Schwartz, you don’t believe in God, why are you going?”

Schwartz responds, “Goldberg goes to synagogue to talk to God, and I go to synagogue to talk to Goldberg.”

The point of the story in this context is that religion is about community at least as much as it is about theology. To be in a religious community is not to necessarily accept the dogma or creed. Many people simply want to be with their families and friends in a context of meaning. Problematically, people who discuss religion often focus on the dogma/creed/theology (regardless of whether it exists as such) rather than the community because we have been taught to divide religion from culture. Instead of defining ideas when discussing a religion, you may find it is a more worthwhile exercise to talk about the people.

Pro tip: Buddhism preceded (Pauline) Christianity by five/six centuries at least. The latter could not have "lead to" the former. — 180 Proof

My bad, I should've been clearer. "Leads to" was meant in the sense ideologically and not chronologically. That's how far-sighted the buddha was; he was way ahead of his time and struck a balance between religion proper (metaphysically heavy) and secular ethics (metaphysically empty). He was, in the end, all about the middle path.

Have you read Buber? — Ennui Elucidator

Yes...with some relish, but a long time ago.

Harari
— Ennui Elucidator
Israeli historian. — Wheatley

Maybe "speculative historian" is a more apt description.

I almost posted the Oven of Akhnai for them, — Ennui Elucidator

Haha, just read it. Reb Eliezer would have made a poor litigator...all of his argumentation would employ circumstantial evidence!

. I am simply trying to bring nuance to a conversation... — Ennui Elucidator

There is a famous joke about two men, Goldberg and Schwartz, who are walking to synagogue. They are stopped along the way by someone who asks them where they are going. They casually tell the man that they are both on their way to synagogue.

The man responds, “Goldberg, I know why you go to synagogue. You believe in God, and you’re an observant Jew.” Then he adds, “But Schwartz, you don’t believe in God, why are you going?”

Schwartz responds, “Goldberg goes to synagogue to talk to God, and I go to synagogue to talk to Goldberg.”

The point of the story in this context is that religion is about community at least as much as it is about theology. — Ennui Elucidator

Well then, I'll call that adding nuance, and a great point of observation, especially at this hour (t's late here), and it actually addresses the OP more directly than the rather more historical tangent we have embarked upon.

Wanting to address the final two chapters of this certain novel, I'll sign off for now. More discussion later...

So, would I be correct if I said,

1. Saṁvṛti (provisional truth): about the world as it appears, Maya (illusion) is truth-apt. Kantian phenomenon.

2. Paramārtha (ultimate truth): about the world as it is. Kantian noumenon

?

Harari
— Ennui Elucidator
Israeli historian. — Wheatley

What's so funny? I just started a book (Sapiens) by him. Should I stop? WTF?

No, I don't mean anything. You should just be careful that he might be biased because he's from Israel. That's all.

I have nothing against Harari.

No, I don't mean anthing. — Wheatley

:sweat:

Seriously, there's good and bad people from every country, including Israel.

Seriously, there's good and bad people from every country, including Israel. — Wheatley

Yep, :ok: It's hard to tell the difference. I thought you had something on him. It would've made for, at the very least, an interesting conversation.

Yep, :ok: It's hard to tell the difference. I thought you had something on him. — TheMadFool

Just mention/call all the anti-Israel people on this forum. lol

There are a lot of them...

Just ask all the anti-Israel people on this forum. lol

There are a lot of them... — Wheatley

Sorry to hear that but not that I'm anti-Palestine.

What's so funny? I just started a book (Sapiens) by him. Should I stop? WTF? — TheMadFool

If you can get past the pap about the hunter-gatherer lifestyle being one of bucolic wonder, and the development of agriculture being one of the worst things ever to befall mankind, you've got "Sapiens" licked. But the follow up book, entitled "Homo Deus", is so highly and fantastically speculative, that one can only refer to it as "science fiction".

Much has been made about Harari by the 'vulgus', but the work in question is really not good academic history....popular history to be read as entertainment only, I would estimate. My assumption is that N.H., obviously possessed of a significant intellect, fully knows this, and having decided that populist solvency is preferable to academic insolvency, has decided to "give the people what they want".

It's hard to disentangle academia from politics, isn't it?

Crap, now I sound like an Israeli. :nerd:

It's hard to disentangle academia from politics, isn't it? — Wheatley

That's an understatement.

:ok:

That's an understatement. — TheMadFool

I gave that one up as a bad job. Definition

So, would I be correct if I said,

1. Saṁvṛti (provisional truth): about the world as it appears, Maya (illusion) is truth-apt. Kantian phenomenon.

2. Paramārtha (ultimate truth): about the world as it is. Kantian noumenon — TheMadFool

A lot of Buddhists would answer 'no'. But the first real in-depth book on Buddhist philosophy I read was The Central Philosophy of Buddhism by T.R.V. Murti. He was an Indian scholar who had trained at Oxford, and the book has many in-depth comparisons between Buddhist and European philosophy, especially Kant. See this.

That said, this book was published in 1955 and many recent Buddhist scholars disagree with Murti's analysis on the basis that it's too 'euro-centric'. But the tutor who supervised my thesis on the subject (in 2012) still endorsed it.