Can God Change his Mind? (page 4)

mikeflood

Well, the Israelites wanted a king instead of a judge....that change was allowed

Also, you could have wives it changed to one wife, so I guess God changes his mind sometimes....

A huge portion of the world is apathetic to the concept of deities, they are called Buddhists. The Buddha, it's claimed, said little about gods but if they existed, they were irrelevant. Rather than imagine an entity to explain causes, he assumed an unwritten law of karma. Our actions have untold consequences that effect the physical world and our own well being. While he was a product of his age in many ways, he is said to have been a deep thinker that saw the waste of resources and emotion spent on appeasing deities. He also saw worship of them of no value in improving the mind and character.

peacefulpete

Well, the Israelites wanted a king instead of a judge....that change was allowed

That is an interesting topic. Jews and careful readers for centuries have pondered the odd, conflicted position towards the appointment of Kings in the OT. It ought not surprise anyone that the reason is the exilic/postexilic redaction of the Deuteronomist history.

Compare the negative view 1 Sam 8 with the positive 9:1-10:16 then see the return to a negative version repeated starting at 10:17.

(Deut. 17:14a,b,15 has similarly been edited. The introjection in the center (b) changes the meaning negatively.

14“When you enter the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and you take possession of it and live in it,

and you say, ‘I will appoint a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’

15you shall in fact appoint a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses.

Think about the mind of a priestly/scribal caste of writers living in exile or just returned from there, the importance and value of a King no doubt was diminished if not distained. In the absence of a King the priestly leaders effectively govern the people, also during the early Persian period clambering for a King would have been (and was) disastrous. This is the same group that altered the texts regarding the covenant with David, making it conditional and a mere warning tale of history.

So rather than being God who changed his mind it was the writers. Of course that is always the case.

Halcon

Thank you Pete and Tonus for responding.

Pete-So, what I'm getting at is there is nothing "all at once" about it. Human religious development grew from simple assumptions of agency involved in the otherwise unexplainable movement into complex rationalizations of how to appease these agents. The agents are mental constructs that offer comfort or fear.

I am understanding that you believe that when the first human did what you explained above, he bypassed the possibility of there being just ONE god and immediately inferred that it was multiple gods ...all at once. You believe that there was no gradual rationalization from one god to many.

Further, that this happened in a 'vacuum' where the idea or most minimal concept of a god was inexistent.

This theory, then, reflects instinctive action and thought. From absolutely nothing to suddenly, all at once (no graduality), gods. This is very impressive to say the least. Which is why I've asked, even if this theory is correct, why this instinct?

The inferring that it was multiple gods was not an inconsequential idea. In fact, it's stuck to this modern day.

Halcon

Tonus-I don't know if god was always the explanation for the unknown. It may have been the most convenient explanation because it wasn't falsifiable. If there was a single being responsible, one would expect that every explanation would refer to this specific being. But, over the course of human history, entire pantheons were invented and catalogued and used to explain the unknown.

Your claim that it was God, because God wasn't falsifiable assumes a great degree of thought and mental capacity on the part of its originator.

Assuming that the first human being who came up with the idea of God was very primitive, this same primitive had to weigh an impressive amount of pros and cons, data, variables etc in order to formulate and arrive at an unfalsifiable God in order for the idea to stick. That's impressive for a supposed 'caveman'.

In fact it was such a stroke of genius from that primitive that this notion of God still exists today, eons removed from all the ignorance that once existed.

peacefulpete

I am understanding that you believe that when the first human did what you explained above, he bypassed the possibility of there being just ONE god and immediately inferred that it was multiple gods ...all at once. You believe that there was no gradual rationalization from one god to many.

Who knows, that precise moment was not recorded. What is evident is that the earliest record does show animism/multiple spirits. I'm guessing that the spirit in the fire was distinguished from the spirit in the water for obvious reasons. Multiple spirits is far more intuitive than a single one, as I said, perhaps an even superior idea theologically.

Further, that this happened in a 'vacuum' where the idea or most minimal concept of a god was inexistent.

I don't understand why you say this happened in a "vacuum". The mind is a dynamic thing, the world is dynamic and filled with inspiration. I would, and have said elsewhere, nothing creative takes place in a vacuum. Humans are very good at copying and combining concepts. The concept of animate invisible spirits/gods is a projection of our own sense of agency/self upon an unexplainable action. We then, as I said, imagine the spirit to be like what we are familiar with, a human form or animal. No, creative/imaginative ideas are not from a 'vacuum', they are drawn from our own psychology and environment.

There is no "instinct" to believe in a god. The mind makes inferences (door closed so must be a closer) but how these inferences are interpreted has varied through history. There is nothing anymore instinctive about monotheism than there is about superstitions about black cats. Either particular tradition is the result of millennia of refinement and cultural transmission.

peacefulpete

In fact it was such a stroke of genius from that primitive that this notion of God still exists today, eons removed from all the ignorance that once existed.

Rather than a stroke of genius worthy of retaining, the concept only still lingers and functions for those who persist in primitive thinking. No offense intended.

You also keep ignoring the fact that billions today are polytheists and billions are apatheists.

TonusOH

Halcon: Your claim that it was God, because God wasn't falsifiable assumes a great degree of thought and mental capacity on the part of its originator.

Only if we presume that the concept was originated all at once, in an advanced/completed form, and isolated from any other ideas. I don't think this is the case. The creation of god(s) was probably a very lengthy, gradual process. Many ideas and explanations would have been offered. The ideas and explanations that could be most easily tested and challenged would have been filtered out over time. The ones that were difficult or impossible to disprove would have held on longer, and eventually been refined.

This is why I think it's notable that there wasn't always one specific god who was put forth as an explanation. The Bible describes a god who was known to some humans personally, who performed miraculous feats that people witnessed, who was known to humanity right from the start. And yet, we find older writings and older gods than the one described in the Bible. We find older explanations for the creation of the world, and older descriptions of how things came to be. It fits more readily with the idea of gods as handy --if useless-- explanations for the unknown.

Halcon

I'm guessing that the spirit in the fire was distinguished from the spirit in the water for obvious reasons.

This is precisely an instinctive thing to have done. Why did man have to see a spirit in the fire or the water? Why not leave it at "it's hot" or "it's wet"?

You say that it's because the mind is dynamic. But in all the dynamic ways it could have concluded it had to be God (or gods, since we don't have a record of which came first).

Humans are very good at copying and combining concepts. The concept of animate invisible spirits/gods is a projection of our own sense of agency/self upon an unexplainable action. We then, as I said, imagine the spirit to be like what we are familiar with, a human form or animal.

Yet God isn't imperfect or incomplete like us. We look "up" to him. Even those primitives that inferred on fire and water saw spirits that did things that they themselves couldn't do as humans. The very notion that they ascribed these spirits human like characteristics to reduce their fear of them implies that the spirits were superior to humans in some way, which caused fear. They apparently had to be made more 'familiar', according to the theory.

For you, monotheism and black cat superstitions, are a result of a very long process. I can understand that. However, you also credit the initial thought that started the whole process as not being entirely original either. If that initial thought was also a result of a process, is there ever a true original idea or concept?

Halcon

Tonus -The creation of god(s) was probably a very lengthy, gradual process. Many ideas and explanations would have been offered. The ideas and explanations that could be most easily tested and challenged would have been filtered out over time. The ones that were difficult or impossible to disprove would have held on longer, and eventually been refined.

Suddenly these primitive people, supposedly more evolved til then to primarily just survive, don't sound so primitive after all.

But again, why would they go through all this to begin with? What would have been the advantage obtained that couldn't be obtained thru any other means? If it was simply to satisfy knowing the unknown, why would it matter if you knew it was wrong anyway? And even so, why not just claim to know yourself...why attribute that knowledge to a god? Wouldn't that have been more logical?

The appearance of God and gods in ancient writings everywhere simply affirms how either the concept of God was instinctive in man, or how genius the guy who made it up was.

Can God Change his Mind?

Share this