G-d - what is He?

[Muslimwoman]

Shalom BB & Dauer

During prayer today I tried so hard to feel the presence of G-d, to lift my soul to Him during prayer.

Trouble is I had conflicting visions in my mind (I still have trouble concentrating during prayer and my mind goes off on tangents).

From my Christian upbringing I saw big white stairs, fluffy clouds and this judgemental father figure who wouldn't mind if I jumped on his lap, said sorry and kissed his cheek. I imagined curling up in a big fluffy cloud and feeling safe and secure - although the cloud was very dark grey.

From my Muslim beliefs I felt that I was wrong to even try to imagine Him and I should just cower a lot. Silly when you consider that the Quran teaches that Allah is all merciful - so why would I feel I was a worm that should cower and not dare lift my eyes?

When I tried to ignore these visions and think 'outside myself' I just felt a strong enveloping energy. There was nothing to see but plenty to feel, although I did get the feeling it was watching me in a big way but not a nasty way, just watching and knowing.

Am I making any sense?

Anyway, this got me to wondering what Judaism says about G-d. Do people of the Jewish faith have a collective vision of G-d or heaven? Does the Torah give you any glimpse of G-d or 'what' He is?

Salaam

[dauer]

Hi mw.

Judaism has a lot to say about G!d, which is to say that there are many different opinions. There are a few things that remain mostly constant: G!d's oneness, both immanent and transcendent (omnipresent) and benevolent. On top of that you can generally add omniscient and omnipotent but with each of the terms I've mentioned there's room to debate exactly what it means.

Because there are such varying views it is probably more helpful to offer a link, and if you have any more specific questions I can gladly answer.

MyJewishLearning.com - Ideas & Belief: God

In the column on the left there are guided learnings in four levels: primer, topical overviews, deeper explorations and analysis & interpretation or otherwise you can have access to the same articles and more, unguided, by just exploring.

In terms of mercy, Judaism understands G!d's justice to always be tempered by His mercy, and the most significant revelation of G!d's nature in the Torah is during the revelation when He passes before Moses in Ex. 34:6-7:

(Judaica Press) "6. And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: v u v h, v u v h, God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth,
7. preserving loving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and rebellion and sin; yet He does not completely clear [of sin] He visits the iniquity of parents on children and children's children, to the third and fourth generations."

See rashi's commentary here for some explanation:

Shemot - Chapter 34 - Exodus

dauer

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

From my Christian upbringing I saw big white stairs, fluffy clouds and this judgemental father figure who wouldn't mind if I jumped on his lap, said sorry and kissed his cheek. I imagined curling up in a big fluffy cloud and feeling safe and secure - although the cloud was very dark grey.

MW, I know that you are inquirying for a Jewish answer to your OP, but I felt I must comment on this statement at least.

I acknowledge that in the various Christian circles one is going to find different views of God not only on the denominational level, but even on a personal level. Certainly, in your experience and orientation, you have developed your own view of God within the Christian paradigm that you are familiar with. However, I would like to point out that your description of what you termed "judgemental father" takes on the connotation of a heavy-handed paternal figure that is poised to mete out punishment at the slightest infraction. To me, a father is one who takes a vested interest in what his children is doing and takes steps to instruct and discipline us toward the right way. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Psalm 22:6) I do not believe God takes lightly our sins, but I also believe that he knows what we are made of, that we are prone to sin. Furthermore, I do not think it is sufficient to climb up on his lap and say sorry and all is right with the world. Rather like Jesus said to the adulterous woman, "Go and sin no more".

God's standard is perfection. But that perfection is progressive. In other words, God will deal with us one step at a time. The mercy He extends toward us is meant to lift us up a little higher than our sins would drag us down. Repentance is acknowledging that a corrective step is needed and that you aim for that goal.

The immanence you felt as that enveloping energy is the balance between the two views you presented, Christian and Muslim. No, that isn't even correct. Because you climbed above those paradigms, you've found a fuller expression of God than what summation you might of gained from either one of those views. Effectively, that force you felt was personal, between you and God solely.

I'm not implying that you should abandon your beliefs, not at all. Rather you discovered something with God that transcended your religion. You've drawn closer to that which you are seeking. It is something that no words in a text can show you, you must experience yourself.

BTW, this can happen collectively as well on occasion, where whole groups of people can mutually experience the transcendence and immanence of God. (No, I'm not talking about what you see with these TV evangelists where people go crazy running down the aisles and laughing on the floor) Rather it is a sense of oneness with others that you are praying and wroshiping with. You know it and they know it. Its the ties that bind.

Sorry for rambling on, MW. But I hope you will at least see the difference in the Christian paradigms that I was trying to explain.

Now we return you to you regular programming...

[Muslimwoman]

Shalom Dauer

Thank you, fascinating. I would love to sit with a group of Jews discussing religion, I think it would be a great voyage of discovery and probably a laugh a minute (you have this ability to allow debate and new ideas that my faith does not allow).

I have bookmarked the site, for further reading later. I found this particularly relevant:

Precisely because God is the supremely transcendent reality, neither the human mind nor human language is equipped to characterize Him in any objectively accurate way.

I was also interested in the explanation for the verses you provided. May I check I understood correctly. If children continue a false practice of the parents then they will be punished, not for the sin the parents physically committed but for a sin 'of the parents' (ie the practice they learnt from the parents and continued)?

Salaam


Dondi my friend

Nice to hear from you, thank you for your comments. I do hope you are right about me finding a more personal relationship with G-d, I certainly feel as though I am.

To be honest much of it has come from my interfaith discussions and seeing the deep seated level of hatred being bred by some sects of different religions, inlcuding my own. Something inside me is screaming that G-d doesn't want us to hate or carry out nasty practices in His name. This is all pushing me away from organised religion and into seeking a more personal connection. Not to suggest I reject my faith, just the practices that have been attached to it.

I am still mentally grappling with finding a balance between the 'hell and damnation' and 'merciful' aspects of G-d but that is my current jihad. I do not want to see Him as a dictatorial ogre or as a 'big softy'. I think there is much human imagination gone into describing G-d and I am leaning toward a less 'emotion' driven image.

Salaam

[dauer]

mw,

Precisely because God is the supremely transcendent reality, neither the human mind nor human language is equipped to characterize Him in any objectively accurate way.

Yus, the idea being that we can observe the way G!d relates with the world but not G!dself, which isn't necessarily as clear as it sounds, although some would certainly take it at that level. The bigger issue is unadulterated G!d, G!d as G!d knows G!d, although there's also a modern drash on Moshe seeing G!d's back that suggests what it means is seeing through G!d's eyes, from His perspective, but that's not talking about seeing G!d through G!d's eyes, but seeing the world from that perspective.

If children continue a false practice of the parents then they will be punished, not for the sin the parents physically committed but for a sin 'of the parents' (ie the practice they learnt from the parents and continued)?

Yeah, and when you think about that it comes as a warning to the parent who passes their sins onto their children. The same cycles and dynamics continue like a ripple reaching out from a rock plunking into a still pond. It's a bit like G!d's saying, "If you mess up I'm gonna keep a close eye on your children to make sure the cycle doesn't continue, but I'll be more wary." It's something that's true of people too and the way we view others. If the parents sin terribly then we're suspicious of the children, however in order to do as G!d does, walk in His ways, we have to place value on the good deeds of the parents over the bad deeds, not an easy task for most people.

dauer

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Shalom BB & Dauer

During prayer today I tried so hard to feel the presence of G-d, to lift my soul to Him during prayer.

Did it work?

[bob x]

there's also a modern drash on Moshe seeing G!d's back that suggests what it means is seeing through G!d's eyes, from His perspective

Or maybe it just means that G!d has a really cute butt?

[dauer]

bob,

Or maybe it just means that G!d has a really cute butt?

I think that's a given.

-- dauer

[wil]

Re: G-d - what is He?

to funny, my first comment would be I don't buy the 'He'. Then I read this:

Precisely because God is the supremely transcendent reality, neither the human mind nor human language is equipped to characterize Him in any objectively accurate way.

And I had to chuckle again. What a statement, human mind and human language is not equipped to characterize objectively in any accurate way, except that it is 'Him'. How objective and limiting.

To me, G!d is.
G!d is all there is.

[dauer]

Wil,

I think you're misunderstanding the language. G!d in Judaism is not male and I don't think G!d is male in Islam either. Certainly Judaism personifies G!d using both male and female language as well as language that's not anthropomorphic.

If G!d is all there is then isn't G!d both male and female as well as animal, vegetable and mineral?

dauer

[wil]

Originally Posted by dauer

Wil,

I think you're misunderstanding the language. G!d in Judaism is not male and I don't think G!d is male in Islam either. Certainly Judaism personifies G!d using both male and female language as well as language that's not anthropomorphic.

If G!d is all there is then isn't G!d both male and female as well as animal, vegetable and mineral?

dauer

Oh I've heard it over and over again, that we just say "Him" or "He" but it doesn't denote masculinity. But also if it came down to it, I'd say there are many, many Christians that claim that the He is accurate. That the Father is correct, Michaelangelo didn't paint no grandma up on that ceiling.

I think you and I agree. I mean if after 5,000 years one way it were requested for the next 5000 to begin referring to G!d as 'She' after all it is not denoting femininity simply a place holder for ease of discussion. I think Christians, Jews and Muslims the world over would have issues (not all of them, but the majority). At my church some like to say "Mother/Father G!d" to some folks you can see it is like nails on a chalk board!

And I know the concept of he being generic, but that also comes from a book that when it speaks of 10,000 people it is only referring to males, and only males of a certain age, gets a little tricky there.

Reminds me of Armstrong stepping on the moon, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" Again we have the generic male representing all the world, but funnier is that he didn't say one small step for A man, so in both the first and last portion of his sentence he was referring to all womankind.

Heard once it said G!d don't care if you say 'She', 'He' or 'It' just don't say it all together.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Dondi

God's standard is perfection. But that perfection is progressive. In other words, God will deal with us one step at a time. The mercy He extends toward us is meant to lift us up a little higher than our sins would drag us down. Repentance is acknowledging that a corrective step is needed and that you aim for that goal.

Well that's not my view!! Perfection? Who said perfection is the most important thing? All we all to be perfectionists?

I tend to think of each of us as a plant that grows, develops and evolves, developing personality traits and virtues along the way. The idea is to get bigger, stronger and to eliminate the vices in our personalities. That is what I see as what it means to increase one's holiness -- it is to grow into holier and purer behaviours and attitudes.

Standard? I don't see my life as striving to reach or achieve a particular standard, but to realise my full potential, which is not a standard, but an idealistic dream of how things could be. My aim is to make that dream a reality. Dream, create, make believe, make real and realise.

Progressive? Yes indeed. We'll all plants that have potential, to grow into something beautiful.

We are spiritual plants. The plants of nature are physical plants. By this I mean that it is not our bodies, but our minds that are plants.

I believe we all belong in the Garden of Eden, but when Adam and Eve tasted the fruit, we were uprooted and thrown into another world. Now we want to, once again, be rooted back in Eden.

[dauer]

wil,

I think in the original context it did refer to a male deity, and one that was quite anthropomorphic. I'm not so quick to discard the gendered language because I think there's rich archetypal content there, precisely the content our ancestors were all referring to when they spoke of gendered deities. I think it's good to have a non-dual way of thinking about G!d but at the same time, most of life is lived within a multiplicitous (made that word up) experience. At those times, I generally want something I can relate to, something I can feel on an emotional and visceral level.

At least within the Jewish paradigm you have both love and awe as important, where love is a coming ever closer, a removing boundaries, and awe requires some recognition of distinction. The whole idea of yearning for G!d I think, the whole sense of yearning, I think it comes from that sense of separation. Maybe everything is G!d and yet much of the time we distinguish this from that, there from here, then from now. In those times it seems expedient to work with what I've got, rather than thinking that maybe what I've got isn't it. It's like the hanhagah, the instructional teaching, that if a man has a thought about a woman during prayer, and his mind begins to stray, he should take his desire back to its root, transform it into a desire for G!d and davven all the more intensely.

I know that when I say He or She there is emotional content and there are connections I'm making with that conceptualization. But in my case I want to hold onto those connections without concretizing them and applying them universally.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by dauer

I think in the original context it did refer to a male deity, and one that was quite anthropomorphic.

But what's wrong with having a concept of God that's anthropomorphic? People make it sound like a great sin. If what we want is a relationship with God I would think that his nature would be unimportant.

I understand, though, that a lot of people believe getting God's nature right is very important (ie. oppose idolatry), that it's blasphemous to get it wrong.

On the other hand, abstinence from speculation and contemplation of God's nature, structure and properties may be exactly what we would need to do to avoid idolatry, as idolatry is ascribing earthly or human characteristics to a God/god and worshipping something that could not be the one and only Supreme God.

I'm not saying we should anthropomorphise God, but an anthropomorphic concept of God may be a more down-to-earth way of understanding God as opposed to "high-up-there" concepts that try to come up with a philosophy of the greatest and biggest God we can invent, as if it's some divine competition. In many ways it sounds elitist, as some people just aren't smart enough to come up with this "Big God Concept." By keeping to a down-to-earth concept of God, something we can relate to, something compatible with our own personality, we're just being realists.

In an effort to avoid idolatry, could we, possibly, not be engaging in and practicing idolatry by trying to come up with a "Big God Concept?" By coming up with all these rules about how we can and can't conceptualise God, could we not be building something synonymous with a graven image made of wood, stone and glass? In other words, it's not God that we really worship, but our "Big God Concept." Is God not still God no matter how we see Him? Does He need us to decorate Him?

Not all who anthropomorphise God are trying to build an idol. I think a lot of these people are just trying to come up with a metaphor that works for them. I think I could say the opposite for those who over-philosophise about God. I don't know what you think of it, but I think these people may, themselves, be engaging in idolatry because they come up with all these rules about how people can and can't conceptualise God.

My view: metaphors are good. Just don't make rules. Yeah that's right: A rule to not make rules.

I don't think we need to define the Most High God. I believe that the God who created us gave us the natural ability to connect with Himself. All we need to do is seek Him out with our feelings. We know Him. Well . . . that's just my view.

[dauer]

Salt,

But what's wrong with having a concept of God that's anthropomorphic? People make it sound like a great sin. If what we want is a relationship with God I would think that his nature would be unimportant.

That was the point of the post I made that you just replied to. Maybe I was not clear, but we're pretty much in agreement. Perhaps the clearest statement I made was:

I think it's good to have a non-dual way of thinking about G!d but at the same time, most of life is lived within a multiplicitous (made that word up) experience. At those times, I generally want something I can relate to, something I can feel on an emotional and visceral level.

dauer