The following is taken from a post I made to soc.culture.jewish, in
trying to discuss RM's rejection of the existence of God, which he 
holds to be the basis of his rejection of his six years as an observant
Jew.  It is based on his rejection of the possibility of noumena (to use
Kant's word for things that exist but which are not tangible, nor fully
describable to one who has not experienced them, e.g. blue to a blind
man).  I contend that he rejects a god-idea which is severely limited,
therefore he has not actually rejected God as understood by Judaism. 
He wants me to show the Jewish Conception (tm) of God.  I can't do that, 
not being All of Judaism Wrapped Up in One Package, but I can say what
I think of God.  

Actually, as Rambam says, we can't really talk about God, we can only 
talk about what God isn't.  But we can talk about God's relationship
with the world, as defined in His Torah and in our experience.

My wife thought it sufficiently interesting to post to the website.
Added comments in curly braces.

====================================================================

From: jjbaker@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
Date: 3 Apr 2000 14:58:28 -0400
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: G-d Counts the Tears of Women

In <> RM <addr deleted> writes:
>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>> In <> RM <addr deleted> writes:
>>>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:

>>>> That you can't see beyond the fact that He let 28% of world Jewry
>>>> die, *which He has done before*, indicates only that you can't understand
>>>> Him.  If you claim to be able to understand Him by rejecting Him, you
>>>> are rejecting something else.

>>>I rejected a being I never understood in the first place because it is
>>>unknowable.  The rest is psychology and sociology.

>> Not from what you've been saying here.  You've been talking about a god
>> whose motives you *can* understand, and in rejecting those motives,
>> reject the god.  Since that god is not a Jewish conception of God, you
>> are rejecting something else.

>According to your opinion, what would it take to reject The Jewish Conception 
>of God (TM)?  (Note: I expect you to coherently communicate what that 
>conception is.)

It's hard to say what the official position is, but you can start with 
the first chapter or two of Rambam's Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah.
{Aryeh Kaplan's Handbook of Jewish Thought, or R' Moshe Chaim Luzzatto's
The Way of God, would be other places to look - jjb}

I can only say what I think; you've finally forced me to it.

There is a difference between rejection (an action) and unbelief (a state).
Certainly your rejection of a god you thought you could understand, has led
you to belief in no god.  But it only tells us that you never confronted
what it means to believe in the Creator of the Universe, a God whose actions
may seem to our local (in time and space) intellects to be incomprehensible,
in fact, which seem to act against (what we perceive as) our best interests,
even (what we perceive as) the best interests of the Jewish community, which
is defined as His chosen people.  And yet, He is a God of Judgement, a God
of Grace, Who tempers each with the other to act with Mercy.  He is a God
who cares about every weakness we may have, and will give us the strength,
if we put out an effort, to overcome those weaknesses.  God is:

YKVK, unique, alone, whose very name is an unpronounceable breath;
  // take a deep breath, slowly, and you'll understand the moment of 
  // insight I just had.  {take into account the Eastern pronunciation
  // of the letter vav (waw) - jjb}
a God of judgement and law;
a God of supportiveness;
a God of mercy and of life;
a God of lovingkindness (even if we don't feel we deserve help, it's there);
slow to anger (and quickly appeased);
great in granting goodness (all goods from existence onwards);
great in truth (here is where locality vs. globality of reference comes in:
  ultimate truth can only be known globally as well as locally, while we 
  can only see things locally, from our own perspective);
one who grants goodness to the thousands;
one who carries the burden of sin in lack of doing positive commands;
one who carries the burden of iniquity in inability to hold a proper ideology;
one who carries the burden of transgression in violating negative commands;
one who cleanses us of these states when we do teshuvah.

If this looks familiar, it's how I understand the 13 Attributes.

In His name at the Burning Bush, Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh, He states his position
as being outside of Time and Space.  Is He?  Will He be?  The Tetragrammaton
as well hints at being outside of Time.  So your anger at Him over the Shoah,
and my anger at Him over my infertility, are purely local phenomena, which
do not affect His nature, or His existence.  However, your anger at a god
whom you only conceive as being either totally transcendent and uncaring
(the epicurean god), or as being sadistic to torture His children so, 
are anger at a god who is limited in time and space, one whose motives
are comprehensible and thus rejectable.  Yes, your totally transcendent
god is limited in time and space: he cannot interact with our local frames
of reference - that is limitation as much as limitation to human or animal
form.

I must say that this is the first time I've really tried to think
systematically about these things, so if it's not too coherent, please
excuse me.  Maybe someone else can produce something that's more of a
synthesis of known medieval and classical positions.

-- 
    Jonathan Baker        |  Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
    jjbaker@panix.com     |  Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
     Web page update: Teachings of the Rav http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/