Week 3 SAB Study: Does God Ever Repent?

Originally posted by kirksey957
I am not versed in logic like you, but I am wondering if I am giving God human-like traits where you may be giving God transcendent qualities.

Could god qualify as god *at alll* if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

Or (as I like to think) would god *only* qualify as god if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. You'll need to be clear about which meaning of "repent" is being used in each of the verses:

re·pent1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pnt)
v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents
v. intr.
To feel remorse, contrition, or sel ...[text shortened]... how the readers of those passages interpreted them traditionally.

Just to provide some background:

The Hebrew word translated here as “repent” is nacham (spelled nun-chet-mem; the “ch” being pronounced somewhat like the Scottish ch in “loch), or one of its variations. Among its meanings are: to have compassion on, to pity, to grieve, to regret or be sorry for, to comfort.

In the Septuagint, the Greek word used to translate it is metanoia, which is also the NT word translated as “repent.” Metanoia literally means to change or transform one’s mind.

The other Hebrew word often translated as “repentance” is t’shuvah, which carries the meaning of “return.”

Jewish tradition, as I have studied it, seems to come down pretty universally on the affirmative in response to Dr. Scribbles question.

EDIT: Apologies to Coletti: I missed your post on nacham the first time around.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Could god qualify as god *at alll* if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

Or (as I like to think) would god *only* qualify as god if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

I'm not sure. I come from an incarnational viewpoint. However, in thinking about your question I tried to come up with a "God" who had no human-like traits. So I thought about someone who found their "higher power" in the form of a tree. The tree is seemingly void of any human-like traits. Yet, to the person who has ascribed deity to this tree, they may find the cycles of the seasons having an effect upon the tree much like outside influences may effect the person. He may also find some identification in its capacity to grow and become more solid. This person may find some utilitarian aspects of the tree in that it provide shelter or protection. So on some level we may be hardwired to find some human qualities in God.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Could god qualify as god *at alll* if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

Or (as I like to think) would god *only* qualify as god if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

Could god qualify as god *at alll* if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

Or (as I like to think) would god *only* qualify as god if we deprived god completely of all human-like traits?

These are excellent questions. Kirk is going behind them to the question of God’s immanence “versus” God’s transcendence. They could also be recast in terms of kataphatic theology “versus” apophatic theology: the former affirming that we can say things about God in human terms, even if imperfectly; the latter claiming that God is fundamentally unknowable in human terms, or that the best we can do is say what God is not—God being ultimately an ineffable mystery. (Note that I have put “versus” in quotes, because not all folks view them so much as an “either-or” as a paradoxical “both-and.” )

Now, if we really cannot say anything about God in terms of human traits or understanding, then perhaps we all ought to just shut up about it. Sometimes I think that might be the best course. 😉

EDIT: Re Kirk's post above (which I didn't see before I posted this): I "cheated" perhaps by going beyond just human "traits" to human "terms and understanding." I liked your example.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I am curious to the fact that this idea takes away your hope, but give me hope. Any ideas?

I wonder how much of this might have to do with (subconscious?) fears? (I’m including myself here, too.)

Some people seem to be more afraid that God’s justness will not prevail—including keeping promises, not changing course, not punishing the wicked, not extending compassion beyond covenant, etc., etc. (fill in your own understanding)—so that the basis for their hopes is not sure and certain.

Others seem more afraid that God’s mercy will not prevail—that our human frailties, failures and sins, our forgetfulness of God, our stubbornness, our inability to ever be “good enough,” our inability to ever have “perfect faith,” etc., etc. (fill in your own)—so that there is no basis for hope.

And so, different people “weight” God’s justness and mercy differently based on their own fears and hopes. (In both cases acknowledging that we may not have perfect understanding, and that none of us may be able to read the texts perfectly—at least in terms of finding “the one and only right and true meaning”.)

And almost everyone seems to fear “walking in the dark” of mystery, paradox and multiple possibilities….

Just some thoughts for self-examination….

Originally posted by kirksey957
I'm not sure. I come from an incarnational viewpoint. However, in thinking about your question I tried to come up with a "God" who had no human-like traits. So I thought about someone who found their "higher power" in the form of a tree. The tree is seemingly void of any human-like traits. Yet, to the person who has ascribed deity to this tree, ...[text shortened]... elter or protection. So on some level we may be hardwired to find some human qualities in God.

When I said "devoid of human-like traits" I actually had in mind something even more general. In particular, I had in mind the idea that god--to qualify as god--would need to possess properties beyond our ken. As trees do not (completely) possess properties beyond our ken, I didn't have trees in mind.

Actually, at one level, I find the idea that someone would consider a tree to be a "higher power" to be extremely amusing (unless they happen to be some sort of pious lichen)! At another level, however, I can see how anything, particular a natural object, can be regarded as sacred in virtue of the perceived properties it tends to exemplify.

But the point I wanted to bring out is this. People want to relate to God. For them to do so, he must have human-like qualities, albeit in a vastly inflated and idealized form. For example, like human beings, he must be able to love, but unlike them, he must also be able to love perfectly.

However, people also want God to be the ultimate explanation for everything. For him to do so, he must have transcendent qualities: he must be somehow beyond everything else. For, if he was not beyond everything else, how could he explain everything else? Instead, he would be explained in terms of something else. This means, I think, that he has to be beyond such apparently fundamental things as time, space, causality, and substance. Perhaps it is possible to be; but if it is, then people cannot understand how.

However, here's the rub: it may be logically impossible for God both to embody identifiably human-like characteristics--that is, to be somewhat within the sphere of human understanding--and to possess at the same time the ineffable properties that would make him the definitive and ultimate being--that is, to be entirely beyond the sphere of human understanding.

I think that the reconcilitation of these two competing requirements is too often glibly declared a mystery when it may present logical contradictions that make the reconciliation impossible. The easy way out is to deny that God has to be either one or the other, that is, accessible or transcendent. However, if God is made accessible at the expense of being transcendent, he then becomes an anthropomorphic caricature; but if he is made transcendent at the expense of being being accessible, he then comes a metaphysical abstraction. To satisfy both heart and head, he must be both accessible and transcendent. But can he be both?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
When I said "devoid of human-like traits" I actually had in mind something even more general. In particular, I had in mind the idea that god--to qualify as god--would need to possess properties beyond our ken. As trees do not (completely) possess properties beyond our ken, I didn't have trees in mind.

Actually, at one level, I find the idea that ...[text shortened]... atisfy both heart and head, he must be both accessible and transcendent. But can he be both?

Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two passages of Scripture that came to mind that I would offer as relevent to this conversation.

The first is "be still and know." The reason I offered this one is that it has absolutely nothing to do with "do this, understand this, believe this, or follow this". It is simply an invitation to experience "otherness" in quietness and reflection.

The other is from Isaiah: "Just as the heavens are above the earth, so are God's ways above your ways." It may mean (obviously) that God is more powerful than mankind. But what if it meant that God may be beyond what we are able to comprehend? I don't know. I personally feel that I am comforted (in my limitedness) by human traits of God that I can comprehend or identify with. The core of these may stem from those early object-relations we have with our primary caregivers we have at birth.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
When I said "devoid of human-like traits" I actually had in mind something even more general. In particular, I had in mind the idea that god--to qualify as god--would need to possess properties beyond our ken. As trees do not (comple ...[text shortened]... must be both accessible and transcendent. But can he be both?

Well put: identifies the problem clearly, I think.

I have an experience—let’s say of the wind on my face. I describe it to you in words, perhaps cool and dry and pleasant. I have described the sensations as I identify them (cool and dry) and my affective response (pleasant). My description, however, is not the experience. You may experience the same wind, but to you it seems warm and its dryness seems harsh on your skin and you do not find it at all pleasant. Our descriptions are in conflict. Can the same wind be at the same time cool and warm, pleasant and harsh? But we are not really describing the wind, but our subjective experiences, ex post facto—and in a very little time, we will be describing and analyzing only our memory of that experience. (Do you know the parable of the blind men and the elephant?)

Are the writers of scripture describing “God,” or just their experience and/or understanding of God? Do we spend a lot of time arguing about logical contradictions between different descriptions, and descriptions of descriptions, and explanations and analyses of descriptions? And when is the designation “paradox” legitimate, and not merely an excuse for not confronting contradictions? (You have given me a lot of good questions in my own mind; thank you.)

To speak of mystery is not necessarily glib, or simply a way to ignore logical contradictions. It is a way of speaking of the underlying “suchness” (tathata in Buddhism) of….

“I wish I could give you this pleasant breeze.” 🙂

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
When I said "devoid of human-like traits" I actually had in mind something even more general. In particular, I had in mind the idea that god--to qualify as god--would need to possess properties beyond our ken. As trees do not (completely) possess properties beyond our ken, I didn't have trees in mind.

Actually, at one level, I find the idea that ...[text shortened]... atisfy both heart and head, he must be both accessible and transcendent. But can he be both?

I don't think there's anything glib about calling it a mystery. A mystery is precisely that - something beyond our ken. There is nothing glib about accepting that there are some things beyond our human ability to understand.

Is it logically impossible for a God to be both transcendent and accessible? I don't think so. We must not confuse the intelligibility of God with the understanding of God. Take, for instance, the concept of infinity. It is a concept that is intelligible to us, but we can never imagine it. All our imagination of the concept of infinity will necessarily be bounded, finite (though large). Similarly, while we can never understand God, it does not mean that everything about God is completely beyond our cognitive abilities.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't think there's anything glib about calling it a mystery. A mystery is precisely that - something beyond our ken. There is nothing glib about accepting that there are some things beyond our human ability to understand.

Is ...[text shortened]... everything about God is completely beyond our cognitive abilities.

I agree that there is nothing glib about calling some things a mystery. Mysteries abound. And if God exists, he would certainly be mysterious.

However, I do think that some people have been too glib in asserting that God's being both accessible and transcendent is a mystery when it may entail a logical contradiction. Without explicating the matter at full length, I think the tension between the two strands of thought should be apparent. People want to have their God (be loving), and to eat him to (have him be the ultimate being).

For example, if I conceive of God as a superperson, with human qualities but in ideal, maximized form, he would still seem to be some sort of existing thing lodged in time and space. Hence, he could not be antecedent to them, which he would need to be, if he were to be posited as the explanation for them. But if God were to be antecedent to them, then we could not be a superperson, as we would not be lodged in time and space.

Now, you may report that in some way God is both in time and space and somehow out of them: we can only see a finite part of the infinite whole. Well, maybe. But also, maybe not. I see a temptation to lapse into woolly-headed mysticism here.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two passages of Scripture that came to mind that I would offer as relevent to this conversation.

The first is "be still and know." The reason I offered this one is that it has absolutely nothing to do with "do this, understand this, believe this, or follow this". It is simply an invitation to exp ...[text shortened]... may stem from those early object-relations we have with our primary caregivers we have at birth.

I have no problem at all with God being ineffable, as the nice biblical passages suggest. My problem is that he may not be effable and ineffable at the same time!

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I have no problem at all with God being ineffable, as the nice biblical passages suggest. My problem is that he may not be effable and ineffable at the same time!

Here is my dictionary definition of ineffable: 1. incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible. 2. not to be spoken because of its sacredness.

Definition 1 is the one we’re talking about here.

I would propose that we are not speaking here of an attribute of God (however you think of that God—a being, the ground of being, etc.). We are talking about our ability (anyone’s ability) to truly describe God’s attributes in words. All such God-talk is at best provisional. People give hints and allusions, use metaphor, symbol, parable—all in their best attempt to try to communicate their sense of the divine.

It is an old conundrum, and you have presented it well. In a Buddhist metaphor, it is all “fingers pointing to the moon.” The finger is not it, just as the map is not the territory. To a Zen master, “As soon as you open your mouth, you are far from—nevertheless, we must speak.” In the early church, the conundrum was addressed by Pseudo-Dionysius (St. Dionysius the Aeropagite in the Eastern church).

I really think we have been addressing three things here:

1) transcendence versus immanence

2) accessibility versus inaccessibility

3) effable versus ineffable

Originally posted by vistesd
Here is my dictionary definition of ineffable: 1. incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible. 2. not to be spoken because of its sacredness.

Definition 1 is the one we’re talking about here.

I would propose that we are not speaking here of an attribute of God (however you think of that God—a being, the ground of being, etc.). ...[text shortened]... e versus immanence

2) accessibility versus inaccessibility

3) effable versus ineffable

Let's start with the first:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=transcendence

tran·scen·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trn-sndnt)
adj.
1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: “fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor” (National Review).
3. Philosophy.
a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immanence

im·ma·nent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.
1. Existing or remaining within; inherent: believed in a God immanent in humans.
2. Restricted entirely to the mind; subjective.

Usually, the transcendence vs. immanence debates focus on transcendent(4) vs. immanent(1). In Fides et Ratio, JPII focuses on transcendent(2) vs. immanent(2).

When looking at transcendent(3b), we are essentially looking at the accessibility question.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's start with the first:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=transcendence

tran·scen·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trn-sndnt)
adj.
1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: “fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor” (National Review).
3. Philos ...[text shortened]... .

When looking at transcendent(3b), we are essentially looking at the accessibility question.

That is helpful. Unfortunately, I had little sleep last night, and am too tired right now to do other than make a few fragmented comments.

Usually, the transcendence vs. immanence debates focus on transcendent(4) vs. immanent(1).

Yes, and this has generally been where I grapple with it. I don’t know what “above and independent” mean in T(4). Outside and separate? This goes, I think, to the question of God as a being versus the ground of being (or, in Paul Tillich’s trinitarian formula, ground-of-being, power-of-being and being-itself (logos)).

It also goes to such issues as strict transcendental theism, monism (pantheism or acosmism of some variety) and panentheism.

In Fides et Ratio, JPII focuses on transcendent(2) vs. immanent(2).

Could you give a simple brief on this?

When looking at transcendent(3b), we are essentially looking at the accessibility question.

Is this not also related to T(4) versus I(1), depending on what “above and independent” means?

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, and this has generally been where I grapple with it. I don’t know what “above and independent” mean in T(4). Outside and separate? This goes, I think, to the question of God as a being versus the ground of being (or, in Paul Tillich’s trinitarian formula, ground-of-being, power-of-being and being-itself (logos)).

My metaphysics is very rudimentary, but the classical definition of being (ens) is something which has both essence (essentia) and existence (esse). Hence

essence + existence = being

IIRC In St. Thomas Aquinas's work De Ens et Essentia (On Being and Essence), God is described as the being whose essence is Existence itself. In this formulation, the idea of God as the ground of being (since all beings derive their existence, and hence being, from Him) can be reconciled with the idea that God is a being Himself.

In Fides et Ratio, JPII focuses on transcendent(2) vs. immanent(2).

Could you give a simple brief on this?

The point JPII made in Fides et Ratio (On Faith and Reason) was that modern philosophy was constraining itself by rejecting the transcendental aspect of existence, life and thought to focus on the immanentist. The consequence of this is a "crisis of meaning" in the modern man (a kind of existentialist dilemma), who is unable to discover Meaning purely within his own thought processes. As a result, Reason itself is devalued; it is no longer used to search for Truth with any passion; instead, it is concentrated on the internal process of knowing at the expense of that which is known.

We no longer ask "What do we know"; instead we ask "How do we know".