Dean's World

The truth is that the question is a non-starter; what does one mean by the same G-d?

There is only one G-d. So when you direct your attentions to G-d, it is at him you are aiming.

Let's look at it in another way:

There is G-d; and there is our conception of him.

Let's say G-d 'is' Light (as it were) and our conception of him is the vessel in which that light is 'contained' and expressed.

If part of a man's conception of G-d is true, then G-d(ly) light is contained and expressed in that vessel. If part of the conception/vessel is false, then the there is no light contained and expressed in that part. The light is the same light nonetheless.

Accordingly, the more 'pure' the vessel, the more expressed the light; the less pure, the less expressed the light. Same light, though.

If a person has vessels within vessels within vessels, the light is less manifest; especially if the exterior vessels are false, then the light is concealed. But expressed or not, concealed or not, the light is there the same. Matter of fact, even a pure vessel, though expressing light, obscures or directs attention from the light which cannot be contained, and of course from the essence of G-d which is not light, which is G-d, simple and undefined.

Thus the advantage of relating to G-d through simple faith, accepting that he is beyond conception, not just our conception, but any conception, even infinite conception. Sorta like trying to physically touch an idea.

The reason why we must try to understand--it is the very first commandment according to the Rambam--is because G-d wishes to fill the person; his mind, then his heart, then his thought, speech and action. Indeed that is why he chooses to manifest himself also in a finite way; alas, just as G-d isn't limited to the finite, so he is not limited to the infinite. But the light is the light is the light. There is one G-d. G-d is one.

This dynamic holds for all theistic attentions.

Here is the difference: Torah says about itself that it is one with G-d; thus Torah vessel and G-dly light are utterly one.

President Bush said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. That turned out not to be so, at least not in major quantities. Angry critics accuse him of lying. Those who are less interested in fanning the flames of anger and partisan bigotry are more inclined to use the word "wrong." But setting all that aside, a simple question:

Would it be logical, do you think, to say that President Bush was talking about a different Iraq?

Presented for your perusal without further comment.

A church and Christian newspaper in Malaysia are suing the government after it decreed that the word "Allah" can only be used by Muslims.

In the Malay language "Allah" is used to mean any god, and Christians say they have used the term for centuries.

Opponents of the ban say it is unconstitutional and unreasonable. [...] There has been no official government comment but parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said the decision to ban the word for non-Muslims on security grounds was "unlawful". "The term 'Allah' was used to refer to God by Arabic-speaking Christians before Arabic-speaking Muslims existed," he said.

Well, one comment: obviously, the ban is wrong and any muslim supporting it is an idiot.