The body is not something to be abhorred or rejected. On the contrary, the body serves as sunglasses for the soul. Without the body, the soul can only perceive G-dliness in an abstract, ethereal way. The body allows the soul to stare straight into the face of G-dliness, in tangible, concrete terms. From: Bringing Heaven Down to Earth by Tzvi Freeman I thought this was interesting, because nearly every jew or christian that I've talked to about g-d (not many, admittedly) has always taken the view that we cannot comprehend g-d, and I think that's also said in the torah, we as humans can't fully comprehend g-d.. But this quote says the opposite.. in life we can fully comprehend and understand g-d. I was just wondering what you guys thought- can we comprehend and understand the concept of g-d as humans, or is it too much, too abstract for us to do? I always thought that I could, not at this stage, but eventually, fully appreciate just what g-d is. I could write pages on my world view but i'll try for a readers digest version I believe that g-d is everything, timeless, placeless, people say he's everywhere but I think that he doesn't need to be, he isn't confined to a position even if that position is everywhere, it's like everything and nothing at the same time.. But if I can say all of it, and understand it, and picture it in my head, am I actually comprehending it? Or is it one of those things where you think and think and just can't..
I think Tzvi Freeman was not talking about God specifically, but about Godliness, the awareness of the Shekhinah in our world. If we did not have a spatial existence and were just a soul, we would not have the depth of experience we are blessed with. We wouldn't have our senses with which to experience the Godliness in the world around us. It would all be uniform. As he said, the body allows the soul to percieve the Divine in concrete terms. He's from Chabad. It's Kabbalistic stuff. He's not talking about God so much as he's talking about God's Presence in the world and how we percieve it, the benefit of being physical beings. Did he happen to also mention divine sparks? Personally, I think that anything we call God is only our perception of God, including the mystical experience, and that God ultimately goes beyond the human experience, inasmuch as the human experience is swimming in God. I guess lately I've been more of a panentheist, which also describes the Chabad view of the world. Dauer
I feel that I disagree with you there, saying that the lord is everything is like saying that he is my toilet, or the filth we walk on, far above is Allah(ma he be exalted) from such things.
That makes a lot of sense. I only got that one quote, at the end of an essay (I can't remember what it was on at the moment sorry), but in other quotes hes mentioned divine sparks. Thanks a lot dude
I don't believe God is everything. I believe God is within everything, immanent and transcendant, going beyond everything as well. God is not your toilet or the filth that you walk on. These are physical things. God is not physical. There is an image that I will simplify which like all anthropomorphic language is just an analogy for something beyond its words. Imagine that God is wearing robes and these robes are the world you see around you. Unless you're prone to literalism, this will help you understand my position. Dauer
my question is that seeing as we write g-d like that instead of god on paper because it is disrespectful, the paper might get destroyed etc... does it matter if its on a website and cannot be physically destroyed as the word god doesn't really exist here and is just a code telling some pixels to be in a certain way, unlike when I write it on paper and I can physically touch it?
the moderator could edit it to say poopy.. i kinda see people doing it on a computer as just a continued sign of respect kinda..
I've said this in another thread already.. One of the main reasons some write it g-d is so that it cannot be disrespected by anyone, if someone quotes me as saying it in full, like I've quoted you, and disrepects it by saying something untruthful or offensive about g-d, it is my fault and my responsibility that it happened. This is furthered by some mitzvot relating to speech (including Lev. 19:16, Lev. 25:17), which are often seen as telling us to not speak of someone in the presence of people who may say bad things about them, as even if you're positive about them, your comments and your conversation have caused others to say it. Further, in judaism the name of g-d (there are a few, and i'm not gonna repeat them anyway!) has traditionally been used extremely rarely and guardedly, excepting during religious practices such as prayer, this is because we are told not to blaspheme etc. (the meaning of blasphemy has been changed over the years to mean something negative, ro cursing using a holy name, initially it was using the name at all) Personally, I see it as more of a substitute, like it reflects (to me) anyones conception of what g-d could be, it could really mean anything (based in the idea of the hebrew characters- each means something and adds to the 'reputation' of the word, if i miss out a letter then it reflects that who/what/where/how g-d is, and his reputation as good/bad/nonexistent is different to everyone, that what I am saying is not representative of what He might actually be) But some people see what I do as just as irrational as unfounded hostility. I guess it all depends on viewpoint.
