I think my notion of chosenness has been indelibly shaped by my mother's bat mitzvah sermon (give when I was in 3rd or 4th grade). Her class's parsha was Shlach-lecha, and she talked about how G-d seems to behave like a parent with a first child: testing things out, and clueless about how Israel will react to G-d's parenting techniques. And in many ways, I see chosenness as being G-d's oldest children (it is probably not irrelevant that I am, as you know, also an oldest)- we generally get there first, so G-d is still trying things out for the first time, in some sense (which yes, doesn't mesh well with the way that I think about G-d's relationship to the dimension of time...), and therefore we get both the miraculous successes that shouldn't be expected to work- and also the rough spots. Doesn't make us more (or less) loved- just possibly a little more the result of experimentation rather than practice.
Thinking a bit more about the afore-referenced idea about G-d and time: I have lately been of the opinion that it seems a little bit naive of me to have thought about G-d as bound by linear time in the precise way that we, humans, are. Just because we are bound to interact with time in a set-rate, one-directional manner, that doesn't mean that G-d is limited in the same way. This presumably also has ramifications for the freewill versus predestination debate, since presumably G-d would be able to know what will happen to us in the future without necessarily be binding us to that fate- because that's not the way that G-d perceives time. The closest metaphor I get is a spacial one- that looking at all of time would be similar to looking at a map, or the world from a plane that could land anywhere, i.e. any-when.
In one sense, this works very well for notions that G-d had a more hands-on approach in the biblical era, and has had less and less of one lately. That would just mean that G-d [is] more actively "looking" or "being" in the biblical time period than the modern era. On the other hand, it doesn't deal with, or in fact causes active problems for the idea that I started off with, that G-d chose/choses Israel in the same way that a parent deals with their first child. If G-d isn't time-bound (to recklessly borrow a piece of halakhic terminology for a radically different purpose), then the whole notions of "first" or "lack of practice" just aren't relevant or applicable. I guess they then bring up all the classic time-travel paradoxes and conundrums.
So perhaps it makes more trouble and confusion, rather than less. However it just seems like a concept of G-d that strikes me as more likely realistic than some of my previous conceptions. I also have no idea whether or not this has been dealt with significantly anywhere else. I think I sense a question to a professor coming up in the near future...
Thinking a bit more about the afore-referenced idea about G-d and time: I have lately been of the opinion that it seems a little bit naive of me to have thought about G-d as bound by linear time in the precise way that we, humans, are. Just because we are bound to interact with time in a set-rate, one-directional manner, that doesn't mean that G-d is limited in the same way. This presumably also has ramifications for the freewill versus predestination debate, since presumably G-d would be able to know what will happen to us in the future without necessarily be binding us to that fate- because that's not the way that G-d perceives time. The closest metaphor I get is a spacial one- that looking at all of time would be similar to looking at a map, or the world from a plane that could land anywhere, i.e. any-when.
In one sense, this works very well for notions that G-d had a more hands-on approach in the biblical era, and has had less and less of one lately. That would just mean that G-d [is] more actively "looking" or "being" in the biblical time period than the modern era. On the other hand, it doesn't deal with, or in fact causes active problems for the idea that I started off with, that G-d chose/choses Israel in the same way that a parent deals with their first child. If G-d isn't time-bound (to recklessly borrow a piece of halakhic terminology for a radically different purpose), then the whole notions of "first" or "lack of practice" just aren't relevant or applicable. I guess they then bring up all the classic time-travel paradoxes and conundrums.
So perhaps it makes more trouble and confusion, rather than less. However it just seems like a concept of G-d that strikes me as more likely realistic than some of my previous conceptions. I also have no idea whether or not this has been dealt with significantly anywhere else. I think I sense a question to a professor coming up in the near future...