Next week is the holiday of Shavuot, which celebrates the national revelation of the Torah to the Jewish people 3,323 years ago. As such, it would seem an appropriate time to try and clarify some misconceptions regarding who exactly this Revealer is.
Over the years I have fielded a lot of questions along the lines of, "Rabbi, no one seriously believes in Thor or Isis anymore. Don't you think that the Jewish God will also eventually come to be considered equally as silly?" In such cases I try to explain that the nature of the question reveals that the questioner is making certain assumptions about the nature of God and is not fully familiar with the fundamentals of our understanding of what God is (and is not).
Contrary to popular conception, Judaism did not introduce monotheism to the world. Rather, it restored it. The Torah teaches that the earliest civilizations knew God's unified nature quite well but that there was an unfortunate descent of comprehension over the generations. In his epic work, "The Mishna Torah," Maimonides explained that these early people understood that there was one over-arching, transcendent entity who created and utilized "agents" to interface with the universe. They conceived of the sun as one such agent. Later they came to see it as proper to honor the servant as much as the master and in the course of time dispensed with the master in toto. This was rather self-serving in that now they could beseech the rain "god" in times of drought and the wheat "god" when their crops were in jeopardy. It was quid pro quo: worship in exchange for goods and services. The Jewish conception of God recoils at such reductive pigeonholing and identifies this opportunistic style of worship as the root of the idolatry that Abraham would eventually come to intellectually shatter.
The Torah does not deny the existence of other non-corporeal forces that serve, for example, as messengers between the physical and metaphysical worlds. These forces are referred to as "other gods." Time and again the people are advised to abjure these bit players (who are anyway inexorably under the sway of the Infinite God) and dedicate themselves to the more challenging task of connecting to the one true universal power. This force, when acting within the boundaries of time and space, is known as Elohim and Jewish law has recorded that the meaning of this name is "the master of all powers." There is another name known as YHVH that refers to God in His fully transcendent state. It is also interesting to note that in the Hebrew language the numerological value of the name Elohim equals the word for nature, implying that the natural world is but another expression of this unified power. Jewish practice, such as the daily recitation of the Shema prayer, is very focused on getting its adherents to realize that these two manifestations are one and the same.
Abraham was a spiritual giant. He observed the polytheistic world into which he was born and noted that the sun could not be all that powerful inasmuch as it disappeared for half the day -- and the same with the moon, the wind and all the forces of nature. Their limitation was their fatal defect. He deduced that all things that are limited have beginnings (and endings) and if they began, it was because something else caused them to begin. He surmised that there could not have been an infinite regress of these causes and the only way that our world of effects could have gotten rolling was through the activity of an original cause which itself was uncaused. In the English language this cause is called "God" and although the word can be borrowed and applied to the conception of a being that is very powerful yet limited, it fails to describe Elohim/YHVH, who is unbound by any imagined limitation whatsoever (time, space, matter, et al).
Both Abraham and Aristotle deduced through reason that this "Prime Mover" cannot have any properties of finite existence -- no body, no corporeal elements, no form, etc. He must be "one" in the organic sense that He can't be comprised of any parts. He must be inherently one and inherently indivisible. Maimonides (paraphrasing Aristotle) artfully proved these contentions in 26 steps at the beginning of the second section of his "Guide for the Perplexed." Therefore, Thor, Zeus, Isis and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all theoretically acceptable (if silly) appellations if they are being used to connote the Infinite and unbounded power that we are discussing. Otherwise, they are simply describing a conception of another created, finite entity like any other (and one that is not God.)
An infinite antecedent cause is logical and satisfactorily addresses the question of the origin of the universe. The concept has the added benefit of elegantly explaining conundrums such as, "OK, then where did God come from?" The answer, of course, is that He did not and indeed could not come from anywhere. If He did, He would be finite and not be God and we would be lost in the conundrum of the infinite regress. The Torah's contention is that nothing need create God as He is by definition beyond creation. That which is the cause of space, time and matter and exists outside of those properties obviously can not be bound by them.
There are those who suggest that a bubbling series of interlocked universes that ebb and flow into each other has always existed. They postulate that this is the true cause of our universe and therefore no conscious Creator is required to explain creation. Though, as Brian Greene wrote recently in "The Hidden Reality," "the subject of parallel universes is highly speculative. No experiement or observation has established that any version of the idea is realized in nature." So outside of seemingly being un-provable, this theory would appear to be yet another extension of the faulty notion that something that is either very powerful (Odin, Kronos, etc.) or unbelievably large (multiverse) is the same as infinite. Inasmuch as these theoretical universes exist as distinct and identifiable entities, it's reasonable to conclude that they (and by extension the whole multiverse) are in actuality finite -- and finite things do not create themselves.
So when people suggest that they "just believe in one god less than I do," I point out that from the Judaic vantage point there simply can be no other gods to believe in. Powerful transcendental (but finite) forces yes, but not God.
Follow Rabbi Adam Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiAdamJacobs
Rabbi Lawrence Troster: 10 Teachings on Judaism and the Environment
No it doesn't
The very first story in the torah is about how mankind was cast out of Eden (and God's presence) for a thousand years until one day without warning a great flood came and killed all but a single family. It was only long after that God revealed himslef to Moses
You need to re-read the torah
we are gods in the making some of us just need for making then others. variation is all things even a snowflake. if we come to understand the evolution of consciousness process we cannot help but come to discover that with serial experiences which gives us time and with the law of consequences called karma we have to be gods in the making. gods being spiritual advanced entities with special attributes and creative abilities.
the greater the awareness the greater the creative ability. and very interesting the greater the power to create. if we are able to attain too much power without advanced awareness we will misuse that power. hitler comes to mind.
Excellent observation! There are four Vedas that make up the oldest surviving literature of India. The Rig Veda is the oldest. These scripture were composed beginning in the second millenium BCE. The time of Abraham.
The Creation hymn (Nasdiya) is provocative. %u201CThere was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirrd?%u2026There was neither death nor immortality then. There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day. That one breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond%u2026Desire came upon that one in the beginning; that was the first seed of mind. Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom found the bond of existence in non-existence%u2026.The gods came afterwards, with the creation of the universe. %u2026%u201D
" 'You see', said the elder 'Tanri is worshiped not because he is a god that rules the skies and towers over this earth of mountains and rivers and sand. Tanri or the heavens is simply that which binds all of us. The Lamaist calls it mind and when referring to his pristine blueness it is called bodhi mind. But it is the same truth.'
'And Umay is not simply a goddess but the consummate expression of our organismic connection with all things. You see, this universe is alive and filled with Umay's presence.
While you speak for the poverty of having only one solitary and lone god, we speak of the rivers, wind, trees, grasses, mountains, sands, valleys, seas, and gorges. While you hide your god behind a menagerie of names, we honor the vaulted heavens. You speak of worship. The only true worship is Tanri's love for Umay and her love for her children. Yes, we are her children, all of us, the whole universe and all give voice to sing praise to Tanri and Umay.' "
The Far Side of the Heavens: Collected Works of Batukhan and Bayarmaa
Except the sun doesn't really disappear. It's still there, but this god is *never* there. Why is invisibility a flaw for sun gods but not for this god that "did not and indeed could not come from anywhere"?
What do you think this God would think of religion?
infinite awareness does not think. thinking is a flow of thoughts called consciousness. that requires a subject and an object. there is no subject and object in infinite awareness. now the manifestation of this infinite potential called nature does think. think of humans as the thinking aspect of god. ok some think better than others. must be for universe and yes for us to exist.
when oneness becomes many thinking begins. ok kind of we still have repubs out there. :-(
way too deep sorry.
the religious accept such a god that does not exist and the materialists reject such a god that does not exist. two sides of a coin called unawareness. but unawareness is only temporal. all advance in awareness, no exceptions, yes even the evangels and the materialists advance. :-)
ROFL love that!
Surely, something that LACKS all of these qualities is incapable of caring (or decreeing for that matter) how or if you should worship it. So why do you? And how could anyone ever believe that something as trivial as, say a Saturday or the food you eat or the book you read, could have any relation whatsoever to this god? How do your religious beliefs follow from your definition of god?
From my view point and from reading several "good books" on comparative religion, there simply are THOUSANDS of gods invented in the mind of man.
So there . . .
You do not actually conceive of God as indivisible. If you attribute qualities or aspects to him, then he is divided. If you say that first he existed before or without Creation, and then he created, he is a temporal being are therefore divided. Even subtracting the temporal notion, supposing there is simply God who create - tenseless. Even then, he is existent being and creator of other being. This is a division. If he has both substance and name, that is a division. If you relate to him, then he is divided as a being for himself and a being for you.
A being that is inherently one and inherently indivisible cannot be conceived. Such a - cannot properly be called a being.
I suppose you could retort that God is not a being, but rather Being, but in that case, his existence depends upon beings. For a thing to really be indivisible, it must assume all other things into itself, so as not to be divided by its existences as the unique one in opposition to all other things. In other words, since indivisibility is identity opposed to divisibility, its identity derives from divisibility. There is no difference between indivisibility and divisibility - hence the difference between indivisibility and divisibility.
There is no evidence that people once believed in a singular God before they believed in anthropomorphic forces.
How can you have causality without time? How can you exist outside existence?
"In the English language this cause is called "God""
So you argument is that god caused the universe because the cause of the universe is called god? How is that not circular reasoning?
"from the Judaic vantage point there simply can be no other gods to believe in"
That doesn't change the fact that an atheist simply believes in one less god than you.
Oh really?! What textbook or journal article on quantum mechanics says this?
"I see the divine in the laws of physics, in the natural forces that have shaped life on this planet."
That's fine. Accept what you are calling the divine is not a deity, it is simply natural forces and processes. I find it odd that you are using terminology with baggage involving supernatural deities to merely describe natural forces and processes.