Indeed, there is a huge amount of philosophy and theology that I'm unaware of. However, I'm certainly aware of e.g. Judaic or Saulian theology which are the epitomes of "metaphysical bifurcation" and which is exactly what I criticize, because that is what immanence means. Of course, immanence "maps nicely, [etc.]" -- armchair reasoning can make anything map nicely onto almost anything. That can result in internally coherent thought systems, but such internal coherence does not make the systems automatically correct (i.e. reflect reality), as is the case with abovementioned systems. Just as a side note, I don't think that Spinoza talked about immanence. It were only later commentators of his work who have done so and who, dare I say, didn't get what he was saying. All in all, let's not complicate the matter -- immanence and transcendence say that God is separate from natural world. I say that if that was the case God could be neither omnipresent nor omnipotent (which God however is). And even simple logic (on top of empirical observation) shows that.