G‑d is not Nature.
But Nature is G‑dly.
G‑d is not Nature.
But Nature is G‑dly.
G-D Nature was the Creation of G-D. Nature was a godly creation. G-D Was, is, is to come. Reply
The Quality of Nature is G_dly Nature always strives for balance....homeostasis....all it's forces interact to maintain the integrity of the system.....Man must learn consciously how to form a harmonius human system. Reply
G-dly G-dly is always one. Thank you Reply
Man in Our Image we are not G-d; our nature is G-dly. Reply
Ms Freedman/rabbi Freedman
I read that Ms Freedman wrote:
Though G-d is the Creator of nature, and all of nature has His fingerprint on it, we must not think of nature as G-d.
There is a big but subtle difference in what the Rebbe (in due respect of course) quoted: you write that G'd is nature... That is not what Ms. Freedman means I presume, at least those are not the words I read.
When I bake a bread I am (in a way) the "creator" of that bread, give hands to The Creator perhaps, but I am surely not the bread I put in the oven. Though something of me is in the bread if made by hand and with love.
As to not and is, my first reaction was: sure, of course. From "in the beginning." But it all depends on what is meant by the word G'd, is the word not a box in itself and putting G'D in it can therefore be confusing as everyone has other size of "mindboxes"?
Could you write: God is nature too/or Creator of nature and nature is therefore godly? As we are? ;-)
Reply
Ms. Freedman I believe that what the Rebbe is sating is that Though G-d is the Creator of nature, and all of nature has His fingerprint on it, we must not think of nature as G-d. By thinking in this fashion we run the danger of worshipping nature which is forbidden in Torah. Reply
NATURE
I believe this is in reference to books such as the Rabbi Gikatilla's The Gates of Light, The Alter Rebbe's Tanya, and others, in which G-d is "presented" as being "beyond", "Eyn Sof", yet an/the essential part of All (Kol) things. The quote might read "G-d is BEYOND nature, but nature is G-dly." This being that the concept "G-d" is often referred to, and thought of, as a noun, while "G-dly" is often used as a "dispcriptive" verb.
The reader may want to review Chapters 4, 5, 6 of The Alter Rebbe's Tanya.
Reply
to Ms. Freedman, USA You write that G_d is nature. This is known as pantheism. For a discussion on this topic, please see our article (and the helpful reader comments): "What is the difference between chassidic thought and pantheism" (www.chabad.org/512437). Reply
Yes, I must disagree; G-d is all nature and all nature is G-d. Reply
I posit this language...that as nature is a creation of G-d, nature I see as an expression of G-d. When the plastic world becomes overbearing, I go gaze at the trees, hear the songs of the birds, listen to the music of the trickling brook over rocks... and admire the handiwork of The Master. Settled into resonance, i go back to the world sustained. As nature continues to be fed and sustained by G-d, the expression of G-d is by definition G-dly.