[Avodah] Does God Change His Mind?

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, February 11, 2008 5:37 am, Michael Makovi wrote:
: But also, describing what He isn't, makes absolutely no sense. If we
: say that He is merciful only to say that He is not cruel (but in
: truth, He is not merciful either), couldn't we just as well say that
: He is cruel so as to deny that He is merciful? ...

I raised the subject of negative attributes to illustrate why
attributing emotions to G-d is philosophically problematic. It
presumes a level of ability to comprehend G-d, as well as presuming a
certain level of divisibility, as that between G-d's Mercy and other
aspects of Him.

Actually, mercy is not usually handled as a negative attribute. The
Moreh discusses two kinds of attributes:
- negative attributes. For existence "omnipotence" doesn't mean that
Hashem as infinite power as much as it means that limitations in power
has nothing to do with the subject.

- descriptions of His actions. Thus, G-d's Mercy is a description of
how He acts to us. Rachamim, Din, etc... This is not merely illusion,
saying that Hashem acted in a way that appears like mercy to us. It's
intentionally setting examples for imitatio Dei, "mah hu ... af atah
..."

Before him, Rav Saadia listed the two above and made a third category:
- attributed of our relationship to Him. Not of Hashem Himself, but in
the relationship between Creator and created.

I have specific citations and more discussion at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/06/attributes-of-g-d.shtml>.

: If He is neither
: merciful nor cruel, just say that He has no character traits at all,
: and leave Him as completely undefined. To ascribe to Him something He
: is not, just to negate another thing that He is also not, when He is
: just as much not the one as He is not the other, is completely
: nonsensical.

His actions, which are truly motivated by his Incomprehensible
Essence, are in concert with Mercy, not cruelty. That's why we're
called upon to develop the one and not the other. Vehalakhta
bidrakhav.

: I recall that Rabbi Isidore Epstein in The Faith of Judaism says that
: many think that by denying Hashem character traits and personality,
: they're making Him higher, but really, all they're doing is making Him
: meaningless for our lives.

You do realize that you're citing RIE or REB isn't going to make much
impression if you do not address how their positions address the
concerns of primary sources like Rav Saadia, the Rambam, the Kuzari,
the Ikarim, etc...

: I forget whether Rabbi Epstein takes this as far as Rabbi Berkovits,
: but in any case, it is clear IMHO that Hashem does have some sort of
: personality. The Tanach says He is merciful and that He punishes as
: does a father to a son, and I see no reason to take this at anything
: but face value.

Because it makes no sense. It implies G-d is subject to Mercy, and
thus not the Creator of everything. It implies He experiences time,
and thus can have different moods and motivations. It implies we can
understand His true motivations, despite our being finite.

...
: Similarly, Hashem in His essence or nature never changes. BUT, with
: respect to us, Hashem changes His reaction. When we sin, He notices,
: and He acts accordingly. Is this a change in Him? YES! And His being
: angry at us is no less a change.

Hashem in His essence never changes, but there is change in Him. I
fail to see the consistency here. Or does your notion of Hashem echad
allow for G-d to have an essence as well as other things?

: So if one is going to deny Him character traits and personality, you'd
: better deny Him providence and activity in the world too, if you want
: to be consistent. With good reason did Aristotle make an Unmoved
: Mover. If Hashem has no character, why should He have behavior?

Aristotle placed G-d within time and thus had a difference between
creation and the running of the world. He therefore could be a Deist,
implying G-d as Cause while denying interaction since. However, with
belief that every moment is equally Caused, Desim doesn't work. Hashem
is an unmoved mover, but the motion He caused/causes (trying for
tenseless English) includes providence.

:> And yet EVERY seifer machashavim from a rishon that we till have
:> agrees
:> with this "Muslim-Aristotelian philosophy". Even the scraps we have
:> left of Meqor Chaim (ibn Greirol) never mind more famous texts like
:> RSG, the Rambam, the Ikkarim, Rashi on Chumash, the Kuzari.... WADR,
:> that would make /me/ question my assumptions.

: With the exception of Ikkarim and Kuzari, all of these texts are
: heavily dependent on Aristotelian or Mutakkilistic philosophy. Both of
: these are un-Jewish....

If you believe that REB's thought is Jewish, but Rav Saadia and Rashi
aren't, there is nothing to discuss.

...
: And let's say that every single rishon in the world holds like this.
: However, Chazal are silent on this issue - Chazal never seem (AFAIK)
: to see a problem in ascribing Hashem traits. Therefore, we should
: assume, IMHO, that Chazal took the Tanach at face value and indeed do
: ascribe traits to Hashem. The rishonim did an okimta, but Chazal did
: not.

Or that Chazal, believing in the baal peh nature of TSBP, didn't
publish their theologies.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha at aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507