• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God Can be Wrong

Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Sleeppy said:
Right.

That idea is, maybe not so obviously, unsustainable.

It's a change, describing God's direction and intent-- and it simultaneously limits God's knowledge, while elevating Moses'. Perspectives within time attract that specific error.
Click to expand...
Its a matter of identifying what the "evil" is that Moses is speaking about. Onkelos, Johnathan and Pseudo-Jonathan (Jerusalem) all identify the evil as something G-d spoke, not something G-d thought or wanted - "The evil that You spoke to do to your nation".
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Tumah said:
Its a matter of identifying what the "evil" is that Moses is speaking about. Onkelos, Johnathan and Pseudo-Jonathan (Jerusalem) all identify the evil as something G-d spoke, not something G-d thought or wanted - "The evil that You spoke to do to your nation".
Click to expand...

That's amazing.

God speaks - evil - without forethought or intent.
 
Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Sleeppy said:
That's amazing.

God speaks - evil - without forethought or intent.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. In 32:10 G-d tells Moses to leave him be. The word means to put something down or leave something that you are holding by you or is otherwise in your possession. Rashi et al points out that this word would be appropriate if Moses had started praying to G-d for the Jews' sake and then G-d tells him to 'let go' as if metaphorically Moses had grabbed onto G-d in supplication. From there we learn that G-d was hinting to Moses that he should start praying on behalf of the nation to appease the anger that He would have. This is also relates to the next words - why does G-d need Moses to leave in order to kindle His anger? The words are out of order, it should have said "My anger has kindled against them, now leave Me and I will destroy them." Instead it says, "Leave Me and (ie. so that) My anger will kindle against them and I will destroy them".
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Tumah said:
Not exactly. In 32:10 G-d tells Moses to leave him be. The word means to put something down or leave something that you are holding by you or is otherwise in your possession. Rashi et al points out that this word would be appropriate if Moses had started praying to G-d for the Jews' sake and then G-d tells him to 'let go' as if metaphorically Moses had grabbed onto G-d in supplication. From there we learn that G-d was hinting to Moses that he should start praying on behalf of the nation to appease the anger that He would have. This is also relates to the next words - why does G-d need Moses to leave in order to kindle His anger? The words are out of order, it should have said "My anger has kindled against them, now leave Me and I will destroy them." Instead it says, "Leave Me and (ie. so that) My anger will kindle against them and I will destroy them".
Click to expand...

Leaving (or letting go of) God to do something, versus not. Moses becomes a stimulus which God reacts to.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Tumah said:
Everything is a stimulus which G-d "reacts" to. Alternatively, nothing is.
Click to expand...

Right.

Time is a constraint. When we describe God, we place constraints.

In the cases we've mentioned, God had been placed within time's constraint. When we say God is doing, did, or will do something, we place Him alongside us within time's constraint. We may agree that God is all-knowing, and unchanging, but when we subscribe unequivocally to these descriptions of God, we unknowingly blaspheme. God's respect is not contained, except in the understanding of His creation.

We say that God is impartial, but then we read of impartiality.
 
Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Sleeppy said:
Right.

Time is a constraint. When we describe God, we place constraints.

In the cases we've mentioned, God had been placed within time's constraint. When we say God is doing, did, or will do something, we place Him alongside us within time's constraint. We may agree that God is all-knowing, and unchanging, but when we subscribe unequivocally to these descriptions of God, we unknowingly blaspheme. God's respect is not contained, except in the understanding of His creation.

We say that God is impartial, but then we read of impartiality.
Click to expand...
We aren't describing G-d, but His actions. He definitely can cause things to happen within our time frame and because we are subject to change, G-d's actions may be (or seem to be) subject to change as well.

The difference is in the source of the change. G-d's original decree is that the Jews be wiped out unless Moses prays for us. At the first point in time, Moses has not yet prayed for us, following that decree, G-d let's Moses know they're going to die and alludes to the resolution. Moses prays, we're saved also in following with the original decree. Its not G-d that's changed, its the recipient that affected the final outcome of the original decree, which remained constant throughout.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Tumah said:
We aren't describing G-d, but His actions. He definitely can cause things to happen within our time frame and because we are subject to change, G-d's actions may be (or seem to be) subject to change as well.

The difference is in the source of the change. G-d's original decree is that the Jews be wiped out unless Moses prays for us. At the first point in time, Moses has not yet prayed for us, following that decree, G-d let's Moses know they're going to die and alludes to the resolution. Moses prays, we're saved also in following with the original decree. Its not G-d that's changed, its the recipient that affected the final outcome of the original decree, which remained constant throughout.
Click to expand...

I understand your argument. But the decree itself described a change.

God spoke. He conversed. He listened. He received information. He introduced information. His anger was kindled, etc.

These are all changes, describing limited actions affordable within time's constraints.
 
Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Sleeppy said:
I understand your argument. But the decree itself described a change.

God spoke. He conversed. He listened. He received information. He introduced information. His anger was kindled, etc.

These are all changes, describing limited actions affordable within time's constraints.
Click to expand...
How far up do you want to go?

G-d is Infinite and His flow of influence on the world is infinite, everything is there. There is no anger, there is no happiness, there is no anything, only unlimited flow of bounty that contains everything that could be, that causes everything. The constraining factor, is the vessel that receives it, the creation. According to the merit and ability of the creation to receive the bounty, that's what it receives, while the rest is halted at the degree above.

G-d's Anger, is describing that the recipient's merits and by extension its ability to receive the Divine Influence has decreased, resulting in a drop in quality of life. G-d's Happiness is describing the opposite. Even though the change is on the part of the recipient, we call it G-d's because we perceive it as a change in G-d's governance, not a change in ourselves. Ultimately though, this is working as G-d intends the system to work and it does so according to His Will.

The influence remains the same no matter the time or circumstances, what the change is the state of the recipient according to its merits and circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top