Talking With God

Walter remarked about “‘Religious Teaching’, which encourages separation and exclusivity among people.” Essentially, I agree. In my book, in the chapter titled “What is God?” I touch on the topic (p.309) specifically in relation to my theory which drives the work.

You make another point that you “feel that all men have an inner desire for spiritual growth or evolution.” My Introduction begins, “From the time man first turned his eyes upward and looked beyond himself to the leaves on the trees or the stars in the sky, he was probably overcome with one powerful sensation, perhaps an ageless instinct: curiosity. To the degree a man is curious, so is he civilized…” It seems obvious that curiosity drives growth, so perhaps we are saying much the same thing.

As to an afterlife, my short post, “God’s Nature, Love and Life After Death (Part 4)“, recaps Genesis 3:19, “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” Since my purpose in writing Talking With God is to clarify what the Bible is saying, I’m afraid I can’t go much further than that statement. That is to say, any feelings about a realm to which we go after death is most certainly yours to contemplate, and, as the saying goes, “only time will tell.” Again thank you for your thoughtful and literate comments. They are much appreciated

I recently received an interesting message from Steven:

I have not totally decided to purchase your book, but I am intrigued with your premise. If I may can I ask two questions?

1) What was your faith before this adventure (with your father) and now after your research?

2) You mentioned that faith should be dependent upon the facts, but what [would] be your expectations if accepted, [of] the three great religions on which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are based?

My point, and the thrust of the book, is to try to clarify what I think are serious misinterpretations of specific words in the Five Books as they describe certain laws the Bible says were laid out at Mount Sinai.

Purely as a point of conversation—not at all central to the book—is the list of questions that this new found understanding raises for religions of the world.

Not understanding the true meanings of the laws I discuss has led to the three religions going off on tangents that have little or nothing to do with the original intent of those laws. Whether or not one finds faith acceptable, to base it on incorrect tenets leads to obfuscation. Proper understanding is factual understanding.

Now to answer you specifically, “expectations” might be a bit too strong for me. My hope is for honest discussion and reconsideration of age-old conclusions, assumptions, and conjecture. If God exists, as is the premise of these three major religions, His existence is most certainly not threatened by facts, as I describe above, though religions’ activities may respond to new information.

You ask what is my faith before and after “this adventure,” (and you’re right it was one!). By faith here I believe you refer to my religious affiliation. While I have always believed that personal belief is personal, I will say that I describe my heritage in the book. There I explain that both of my great grandfathers were orthodox Jewish religious leaders, one in New York and the other in Cincinnati. Their system has been followed through the generations in my family. It was my father a scientist and religious scholar, who generated the questions regarding the correct interpretations of the laws to be followed. This has led me to make some adjustments in that system for myself.

Following my response, Steven wrote:

… I will order your book and read your thoughts and conclusions. I am intrigued what your conclusions were for the sacrifices, especially the Day of Atonement and its ritual. If the sacrifices were to protect themselves from the “radiation” then why wouldn’t they use the Urim and Thummin instead of approaching the Ark?

Thanks Steven…

I will follow-up on your final question in my next post.