Can God Change his Mind?

by peacefulpete 56 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Halcon
    Halcon
    Tonus- I am not talking about a group of nomads hashing out the cause of lightning over a few evenings and coming up with a long explanation. Even today, we have a tendency to jump to conclusions on insufficient evidence in order to deal with things we may not understand.

    This also points, then, to the conclusion having been instinctive. A conclusion that originates at the very beginning of mankind and manages to stand the test of time til today despite all the advances in comprehension.

    Again, if there was a god who interacted with these people and guided them at some point, the development of religion would have begun along a single and clear track. With the certainty of god as a starting point, the answers would not have been made up or random.

    This is a separate point, alluding specifically to the God of the Bible. The Bible, nevertheless, clearly states that God eventually became a mystery. In fact, it states that it wasn't until the time of Moses that he revealed his name again. It's no surprise that by then there were countless gods being worshipped just in Egypt alone.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    This also points, then, to the conclusion having been instinctive. A conclusion that originates at the very beginning of mankind and manages to stand the test of time till today despite all the advances in comprehension.

    What conclusion? Surely you are not suggesting that Animism? Many gods, Two gods, three gods, one god (but with an archnemesis), belief in ghosts, slender man, the Jersey Devil, Chupacabra, etc. are "instinctive". All these examples demonstrate a tendency for the human mind to draw conclusions on inference, with incomplete evidence, reinforced through culture. None of these "conclusions" are "instinctive", they are demonstrations of all-to-common flawed decision making.

    Many ideas and memes have survived for millennia. Tribalism, racism, sexism, war to name a few. Surely these ideas are not the result of a creator's programming? If so, then hopefully he's changed his mind.

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    Halcon: This also points, then, to the conclusion having been instinctive.

    It could be. Instincts seem like an unreliable way to determine something as important as the existence of gods. Case in point:

    Halcon: It's no surprise that by then there were countless gods being worshipped just in Egypt alone.

    God disappears for a time, and men's instincts derive an endless list of gods and devils, all of them wrong. Or perhaps not entirely wrong, as Pharaoh's sorcerers were able to call on their deities to duplicate some of the miracles that Moses performed.

  • Halcon
    Halcon
    All these examples demonstrate a tendency for the human mind to draw conclusions on inference, with incomplete evidence, reinforced through culture. None of these "conclusions" are "instinctive", they are demonstrations of all-to-common flawed decision making.

    The conclusion occurred at the very beginning, before time and culture could reinforce it.

    If the first human being who thought of it, without persuasion or influence of culture or concept, then what was it if not instinctive?

    If the idea was not original for that first man, as you indicated, then it must have come from outside of man. A mind beyond man's?

  • Halcon
    Halcon
    God disappears for a time, and men's instincts derive an endless list of gods and devils, all of them wrong. Or perhaps not entirely wrong, as Pharaoh's sorcerers were able to call on their deities to duplicate some of the miracles that Moses performed.

    Certainly not wrong, if we believe that an entire realm of spiritual beings exist.

    And if we believe that God placed that instinct in man, we would believe that it was reliable for the simple fact that the belief still stands. And this is before one considers how God may have played a personal role in their life.

  • KalebOutWest
    KalebOutWest

    People have various beliefs about God. Some don’t even believe in God. Being exposed to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their religion, we were likely taught that the Bible was giving us a unified description of what the “one true God” was thinking, feeling, and desiring. The Bible was a singular product, at least in their teaching, so we might still feel there is a simple, singular answer.


    If you are looking for what the Hebrew God of the Bible is thinking, if God’s mind changes, you might be surprised to find that at least in context from the standpoint of Jewish thinkers, there is no “mind” to consider.

    Of course it looks like the Jews are describing a Bronze Age deity when they talk about YHWH in the narratives (especially in Genesis through 2 Chronicles), but it was designed to do that. The writers were living in the Iron Age, from the period of the Persian Empire.


    If you were one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then you were taught to read the text as historical and at face value. That was due to both a lack of education from its leaders and perhaps duplicity. The Jews, on the other hand, were “wrestling” with the concept of God, not settled with it, as if it were static, as the Watchtower was trying to teach it.


    This is why there is no “mind” for “God” to change in Jewish theology. It is taught that one cannot use prayer and ask for God to change things as Christians do in their prayers. That is not what prayer is for in Judaism, which is why prayers are written down, settled in the Siddur, composed of the Psalms and several other ancient texts handed down from the centuries. One learns to accept God’s will or to accept reality as settled, unchangeable, by repeating the words of psalms and holy texts daily to edify the mind.


    In other words, Jews learn to change their mind via prayer, not change God’s “mind.”


    The clues have always been there in the Biblical Hebrew text via anachronisms, written by Hebrews who were not from the Bronze Age but merely guessing what life might have been like for their ancestors. They had some legends, some folklore, and borrowed some mythology from around them that came from the foreigners among whom they dwelled. This mixture provided the following Iron Age boo-boos, for starters:


    • The Garden of Eden being a Babylonian King’s Garden
    • Eden guarded by a cherubim with a sword
    • A flood legend that imitates Babylon’s
    • Babylon’s Tower disaster reported as history/mythos
    • Abraham having camels
    • Abraham coming from Ur of the Chaldeans
    • Arameans constantly referenced throughout Genesis
    • The existence of Edom (which only popped up after the Assyrian’s invaded)

    And the list can go on and on (and we haven’t even left the book of Genesis yet). Since Jehovah’s Witnesses do not dare question the validity of the Biblical text, all of this is reality.


    Thematically, the Biblical writers in the Mosaic Law narrative and beyond, state that the Jews are called “Israel” and not “Abraham.” The name “Israel” means to “wrestle with God,” not to blindly accept via faith. The folklore about Jacob is that at the point that he is about to make peace with his brother and his past and to inherit the land with his family and his children, he wrestles all night with God and never stops. The wrestling match leaves a permanent identifying mark on him too, not just a new name.

    The idea is that God is not a static, one time concept that gets written down in Scripture and that is that. If one reads the Psalms, the concept of God is different from the narratives in Genesis through 2 Chronicles. If you read Esther, there is no God. If you read the Prophets, God is entirely different, far more complex, almost denying what you learned before.


    God changes or better yet, what the Jews learned about God changes. They “wrestle” with God. Sometimes God is this, sometimes they learn that God is that.


    The idea behind God today is that Jews cannot say what “God” is. Unlike Christianity that defines God, i.e., God “is” love, God “is” omnipresent, omniscient, etc. Judaism sees God as Ineffable and thus undefinable.


    This does not mean that Judaism is the owner and main definer of “God.” But if one is talking about the God of Abraham, the ideas of what they are talking about in this context might help.


    I suggest that anyone can make up their own minds on what they wish to believe, however, and that no religion or religious authority has the final say on what God is or isn’t. However, again, in this context, and in this context only, here is where many in Judaism have come to over the centuries in comparison to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.


    • God has no body.
    • God is not a spirit.
    • God has no mind.
    • God is greater than an entity.
    • God is greater than a “God.”
    • The concept of “God” was invented by humans and therefore God is greater than a “God.”

    Some go so far as to add that God is not personal or not a “person,” so to speak, meaning God is beyond personhood. The concept is that there is no supernatural God, i.e., God is not the creator as much as creation is godly or evolution is an act of what we understand as divine, if that makes sense. The spark of “divinity” is in everything and everyone, but God is not omnipresent in the Christian sense, such as a supernatural presence is everywhere controlling everything, knowing everything, and responsible for everything that happens.


    The various and different stories in the Scriptures are ancient concepts, elementary in the Jewish evolution of wrestling with the God concept. Not everyone believes in God, feels a need for God, or will come to the same conclusions. Hopefully some of this may have been of some help wherever you are on your personal journey.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Once again, I appreciate your sharing your progressive Jewish outlook. The notion of identity, piety and charity apart from fear of deity, is a foreign concept for many. As you have previously mentioned, there is no singular formulation of Judaism, and how to read these ancient texts is a large part of that diversity.

    You and PioneerSchmioneer bring a welcome modern, if I may add, Minimalist perspective to these topics. I'm engaged in fresh research regarding some newer approaches to Source Criticism as a result of your contributions.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit