reply to post by dontreally
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
And yes, I'm aware that Hebrew names also happen to be words in Hebrew.
Well theres your meaning. These names are also words, and thus qualities or states.
...no, that would only be if they were qualities or states explicitly. Take the name 'Smith', it's a job not a quality or state. Now, if you could
demonstrate how the words are qualities or states explicitly, I'd love to hear it.
Meaning is there for those who can actually read Hebrew
Or have a handy reference to actually understand Hebrew.
and understand the basics of Kabbalistic exegesis. Clearly you understand nothing.
No, I understand Kabbalistic hooey. I say hooey because that is my opinion of it after having learned about it. And you clearly don't understand
logical fallacies, as you keep repeating the logical fallacy of special pleading. If I understood nothing, you could simply explain to me how I'm
Soooo...you're just going to go with special pleading again? You're stating all of this, but I'm actually asking where the allegory is. You can't
just give the bullet points?
How would you like me to give bulletpoints?
In the way that follows.
- Adam means "i am blood" or "i have blood". Dam in Hebrew, blood, implies life. Thus, Adam is a man, or state that recoginizes its own
life or existence; ie; self consciousness.
I do know that the noise 'dam' and 'dem' tend to mean blood in semitic languages. Hell, I'm actually a speaker of a semitic language. But where
are you getting the subject and verb from? "A" couldn't be enough to translate into "I am" or "I have" in any language I know of.
Thats all for now. Im not gonna go through the esoteric of this for someone like you.
Wow, harsh. Someone like me? You mean someone who actually likes to hear why I'm wrong from someone who claims I'm wrong?
Asking where an allegory is doesn't happen to be arrogant. I was curious where you found an allegory in all of that immorality.
Pretending to know what youre talkng about is arrogant.
Why yes, I'm saying you're being quite arrogant yourself. I've spent quite a bit of time learning about Hebrew scripture, though I never claimed to
be all knowing. I do
however know with quite a bit of certainty that I can demonstrate a great portion of the laws commanded by the deity
Yahweh in those scriptures to be immoral and often insane.
Or can you tell me how cutting off all of the fine touch nerve receptors on an nonconsenting infant's penis is moral?
not acknowledging your inherent fallibility, is arrogant.
Where did I say I'm infallible? And why aren't you addressing my question?
I never said i understand the Kabbalah totally. But i read Hebrew, i have a hundred + books on the subject and even than i know my limits.
Ok, so do I....but why aren't you addressing my question? I asked you where the allegory is in the laws that command slavery, punish rape victims,
demand the cutting off of functional genital tissue, etc is.
You seem to imagine yourself an authority in whatever topic you come across.
So you're just going to continue with an ad hominem attack rather than actually addressing my question?
And no, I don't consider myself an authority on every topic...or most topics...really not on any topic. Though I do know quite a bit about quite a
lot of subjects.
If you noticed I specifically asked you questions. Questions mean that I'm open to answers. If the answers are any good I might even change my
Even here, a subject you obviously know very little about.
Yes, I know very little about how it's wrong for a deity to command the mass rape of all female virgins in a conquered town.
Evidence, you've not provided any for any of your statements.
I said read the ARI, or Moshe Cordevero, or some of the Chassidic greats.
And I asked for evidence, not a reading list.
Much of it is hinted at in their writings.
Hinted at? So they don't even make it explicit themselves?
and it is much too complex to get into with a person who simple desires to crticize, rather than understand and embrace.
Hey, yet another
ad hominem attack. You're really aiming for the logical fallacy high score, aren't you?
I am not here to criticize, I'm here to discuss
. If I see something that looks fishy I'll openly point it out. If someone points out to me
that I'm wrong, I'd like to see why they think so because I like to learn from my mistakes
Anyone who understands quantum physics knows that you cannot transform the physical through mental means.
Ok..... I reckon you have never in your life read an occult book; and if you had, never experimented with its teachings.
I'm talking about science
. Not any 'occult book'. And science has yet to confirm people altering the physical through mental means. Hell,
there's a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate this sort of ability.
This is quite real. I really am amuzed by your ignorance, and or, put on.
And yet it's never been verified. It's not real at all
. Were people able to alter the physical mentally there would be evidence
Even CG Jungs theory of the unconscious posits a psychic substance - called an archetype - that is able not only to influence consciousness, but
physical matter as well (read wolfgang paulie and his colloborative 'the interpretation of nature and psyche")...
Yes, a pioneering psychologist posited something that has never been proven to exist
. I think the best application of archetypes has been to
understanding our evolutionary psychology through mythology. The 'psychic substance' has yet to be uncovered. It was just an unsupported
Its these archetypal forces which enable man to manipulate physical reality. In the case of a man able to transform something in thought - a visual,
into something else. That requires a very high degree of spirituality which can only usually be achieved through asceticism.
Except...no. Unless you have some evidence you'd like to show of this, I'll just dismiss it. In the words of Hitchens, that which is proposed
without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
edit on 21-1-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)
Hey, it's like the rest of your post. No reason.