Does God change his mind?

[OnceConvinced]

A Christian member of our forum recently pointed out a bible contradiction for all to see:

This verse was presented first:
Numbers 23:19 "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

The Christian then attempted to trump it with a contradictory scripture where God DOES change his mind, thus exposing a blatant bible contradiction:

Jeremiah 18:8 "But if that nation about which I spoke turns from its evil way, I'll change my mind about the disaster that I had planned for it."

Here are further verses that show God changing his mind:

Exodus 32:14
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Jeremiah 18:10
if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. (wow this is a verse where God says he will break his promise!!)


So questions for debate:

Does Got change his mind?
If he does change his mind, how do we know he hasn't changed his mind about much of what he expected from us in the New Testament?
If he does change his mind, how can we really know what he wants of us today?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 289 by hoghead1]


[center]
God changes all the time and does not change at all[/center]

I still find you haven't got my point about the absolute and relative sides of God. God's absolute nature refers to key aspects of God that do not change. The relative side refers to those aspects which do. Both belong in a complete description of God or any other entity.

In other words, you are telling that God changes and he does not.
I guess that's settled then.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 290 by Monta]

I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you agreeing with me that God is supra-natural? What? If you are proposing that God works one way and nature another, then yes, you do have a serious problem in how God and the world can relate, as you have introduced nature as an anti-God principle. You have simply set up, then, two conflicting worlds. There is the universe, which is dynamic, complex, material; and there is the divine world, which is wholly immutable, immaterial, simple. Under those conditions, the world is against every fiber of God's being; and it is impossible to see how the two can interact.

Saying that the world is not divine needs some qualifications, then. I view the universe as ontologically part of God's being, the body of God, as I feel that is the best analogy to illustrate God's omnipresence and great sensitivity to all things. The universe is divine in that sense. However, that doesn't mean the universe is wholly identical to God. God transcends the world, just as my mind transcends my body, for example.

So just saying the world is not divine, and leaving it go at that, lead me to be critical of such a statement as representing an undue God-world dualism.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 288 by Claire Evans]

I still find you haven't got my point about the absolute and relative sides of God. God's absolute nature refers to key aspects of God that do not change. The relative side refers to those aspects which do. Both belong in a complete description of God or any other entity.

I already explained to you how we might overcome the biblical contradictions about God's nature, on the subject of God changing. I also posted to you how Malachi 3:3-7 reconciles these contradictions, pointing to both the absolute and relative side of God.

An absolute nature negatives a relative nature therefore that cannot apply to God. It means there is a contradictory nature to God.


We know absolute nature means:

something that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative

The relative nature you espouse is God changing due to the decisions of man, giving me the example of Malachi 3. You know what I feel about the OT so let's give a NT example.

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Does this suddenly mean Jesus has a relative nature, that is open to interpretation? How is promising the Holy Spirit if one asks suddenly mean He changes? How is an interaction with people mean His nature is relative? Would Jesus recant on anything He promised due to the actions of people?

And again I will refer to Numbers

Numbers 23:19

"God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

Numbers is not saying that God has a relative nature that man has. Us humans have a relative nature. People change with the times as do morals.

Yet the contradiction comes later:

God promised Moses the Promised Land and then recanted on that.

Exodus 5:22-6:8

And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord.’�

Numbers 20:

12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.�

It is true that people often think about God in an inappropriate way. My point is that this is especially true of classical theists and others who think God is wholly immutable. And I have explained why that view of God is incorrect and lopsided.

I don't take kindly to individuals trying to demonize higher education. I value my graduate education because I know the material I was given to study is solid food for thought. So don't give me this Pharisee stuff. That's a major no-no in serious theological discussions. I add that higher education is absolutely essential, as it enables one to develop the necessary critical, analytical skills necessary for solid, smart thinking. I have little interest, absolutely no interest, when people refer me to online sites. The problem today is that many people think they are experts simply because they have read a particular website here or there. No takers on that one with me. Plus, often people refer to website that are hardly credible, not at all managed by qualified people.

Food for thought doesn't mean it's right. The Pharisees thought they were the absolute authority because they were educated and knew the scriptures. You appear to rely more on your education to understand than establishing a relationship with Jesus to understand.

1 Corinthians 2:1

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.

And higher education is not needed for critical thinking else that means that us lay people cannot think for themselves and not know God. If this was the case, why did Jesus speak in parables for all to understand? If He thought the uneducated could never understand, He wouldn't bother preaching to them. [/quote]

I'm not surprised that you don't like online sites. It may challenge you. I always link my sources from educated people. If one states a fact, it doesn't change and become unreliable just because it's online. There are many theologians who have essays online. You sound like an elitist who thinks they are special. Don't fall into that trap. If you are right and sound in what you say, then it will be very easy to refute what I say about Yahweh. So go on and teach me so I can revise my hub. For example, did you know that Yahweh is a storm god and is depicted as a bull, particularly a golden calf?

I reject the idea of God as wholly supernatural, because it sets up a major dualism, hence conflict, between God and the world. God works one way, nature another. If so, it is impossible to reconcile the two. The universe becomes an anti-God principle. In classical theism, in these dualistic models, yes, God is seen as the negation of any and all metaphysical principles, as what holds for creatures in no way holds for God. God and the world are like oil and water; they do not mix. I view God as "supra-natural" because that enable one to reconcile God and the universe. What holds for creatures also holds for God but to the nth degree.

You said that God is supernatural, and that we can understand nothing of the supernatural. So what you end up doing is saying that we can know nothing at all about God, rendering God a totally meaningless concept. That is a prime example why supernatural concept of God just dos not work. If finite, creaturely attributes cannot be ascribed to God, then we can know only what God is not, not what God is, a point well stressed by St. Thomas Aquinas, by the way.

I did not say that. We cannot understand how God defies natural laws. Yet that does not mean we cannot understand His nature. We see it in this life through love. We can identity with God because He imparted to us His nature into humans. We can love, feel compassion, etc, which God does. Without Jesus who had all those characteristics, we cannot know God because His supernatural nature cannot be understood by us humans. How can we explain how God is omniscient? Yet Jesus doesn't say we need to understand that to have a relationship with God.

I do not agree with "unquestioning faith." I find it leads to a mindless Christianity and blind acceptance of highly questionable human-made dogmas, such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the wholly immutable Godhead. The result has been superstition, terror, intolerance, the dark side of Christianity.

You do not know the context of that scriptures. Having a faith like a child is how we should have faith in God. A child doesn't understand why their parents want something for them because it is the best for them. It is beyond his understanding. Therefore He just trusts like we should just trust God even when we don't know why He is doing certain things.

That does not apply to scriptures or religion. To just believe everything in the Bible is not wise. Man wrote is and there can be mistakes, distortion or even outright lies. Faith and critical thinking aren't mutually exclusive.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 290 by Monta]

I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you agreeing with me that God is supra-natural? What? If you are proposing that God works one way and nature another, then yes, you do have a serious problem in how God and the world can relate, as you have introduced nature as an anti-God principle. You have simply set up, then, two conflicting worlds. There is the universe, which is dynamic, complex, material; and there is the divine world, which is wholly immutable, immaterial, simple. Under those conditions, the world is against every fiber of God's being; and it is impossible to see how the two can interact.

Saying that the world is not divine needs some qualifications, then. I view the universe as ontologically part of God's being, the body of God, as I feel that is the best analogy to illustrate God's omnipresence and great sensitivity to all things. The universe is divine in that sense. However, that doesn't mean the universe is wholly identical to God. God transcends the world, just as my mind transcends my body, for example.

So just saying the world is not divine, and leaving it go at that, lead me to be critical of such a statement as representing an undue God-world dualism.

You actually sound like a pantheist who believes that the universe it God. That digresses from Christianity. The universe cannot be divine as it is finite; it has a lifespan and will eventually exist no more. According to the OT, God is not omnipresent as Yahweh, in his physical body, had private conversations with Moses on the mountain. Therefore He couldn't be elsewhere.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 290 by Monta]

I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you agreeing with me that God is supra-natural? What? If you are proposing that God works one way and nature another, then yes, you do have a serious problem in how God and the world can relate, as you have introduced nature as an anti-God principle. You have simply set up, then, two conflicting worlds. There is the universe, which is dynamic, complex, material; and there is the divine world, which is wholly immutable, immaterial, simple. Under those conditions, the world is against every fiber of God's being; and it is impossible to see how the two can interact.

***Nature runs in harmony with the Divine from which it came.

Saying that the world is not divine needs some qualifications, then. I view the universe as ontologically part of God's being, the body of God, as I feel that is the best analogy to illustrate God's omnipresence and great sensitivity to all things. The universe is divine in that sense. However, that doesn't mean the universe is wholly identical to God. God transcends the world, just as my mind transcends my body, for example.

***God is omnipresent in all time apart from time, and He is infinite in all space apart from space, like a soul within the body. Soul is in the body, keeps it alive but it is not the body. Using this analogy I think you are saying soul is the body.

So just saying the world is not divine, and leaving it go at that, lead me to be critical of such a statement as representing an undue God-world dualism.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 292 by hoghead1]


[center]
I'm having a bit of trouble imagining something, so therefore, it's false[/center]

There is the universe, which is dynamic, complex, material; and there is the divine world, which is wholly immutable, immaterial, simple. Under those conditions, the world is against every fiber of God's being; and it is impossible to see how the two can interact.

It might seem impossible to some.
I suggest using a little "imagination".

Jumping from two different planes existing to .. that being "against God's nature", without any attempt at an explanation as to why is too much of a leap for me. This kind of a duality just might be, according to me, another perfectly natural nature of God, you see.

Oh, right.. some people just don't see.
I suggest that they "try" to see.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 293 by Claire Evans]

your remarks such as comparing me to Pharisees, telling me I don't know Scripture, and claiming me an elitist are all ad hominems and therefore totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion.

I already explained how everything has both an absolute and relative nature and how that is not contradictory. Change without consistency is capriciousness, uniformity without diversity or variation is insensitive, blind Hence, both the absolute and relative natures require each other. That's why we all have them. And I provided you with concrete examples in a previous post. Nothing real can be described by reference to only one pole. Seemingly contradictory adjectives may be applied to an identity, provided they denote different aspects. Hence, something can be both hot and cold, as in an ice-cream Sundae. It just depends on which aspects you are speaking of.

I already explained how Malachi 3:5-7 refers to both an absolute and relative dimension to God. The passage you bring up from Numbers does suggest God is wholly immutable. But, as I said, the Bible provides only snap shots of God, which often conflict. And it is very possible, he author of Numbers had in mind only the absolute side of God.

Yes, Jesus had a relative nature. He could change and was deeply moved and affected by others.

Yes, people are fallible and have had fallible ideas about God. A prime example is the notion that God is wholly immutable. And I have shown why this is false.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 294 by Claire Evans]

I am not a pantheist, I am a pan-en-theist. I hold that the universe is the body of God, because, as I have said, I don't know of any other model that does justice to God's omnipresence and sensitivity to all things. Many "pantheists" just use God as another word the universe. That's why I say I'm a "pan-en-theist," meaing all in God. The universe is ontologically part of the being of God, but not the whole reality of God. God transcends the universe, just as I transcend my body. I think that is what Paul had in mind when he said our lives are hid in God. I also think that is what Paul meant in 1 Cor. 15:28:" that God may be all and in all."

The idea of a wholly immaterial God can from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. In the Bible, God is attributed many body parts, which strongly suggests the ancient Hebrews viewed god as having a genuine physical dimension. Moses, for example, saw God's backside. The taboo against making idols does not deny God is a material being. Given that the universe is the body of God, and given that we can see only limited portions of it, then anything we say is going to be far less than the real thing.
If the Incarnation is truly revelatory of God, then it has to reveal God's general MO with creation, and that implies God is incarnate throughout the universe.

The biblical prediction of God is relative predication. You can't be a father without sons, a creator without a creation, a lover without someone to love. Hence, the Bible strongly implies that God is a social-relational being who needs the world to be complete.

Saying that God is supernatural and therefore breaks the laws of nature is right back to the God-world dualism, which I reject. How unfortunate God should ordain laws that he or she can't work in or through and therefore has to break to get anything done. That's why I argue god is supra-natural, the chief and highest example of all metaphysical principles. We are incarnate, but only in a very inferior sense. In sharp contrast, god is incarnate throughout the entire universe. We are sensitive, but only in a very inferior way. In contrast, God enjoys a direct, immediate response to any and all creatures feeling.

[otseng]

You sound like an elitist who thinks they are special.

Moderator Comment

It's best not to insinuate that another is an elitist.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 293 by Claire Evans]

your remarks such as comparing me to Pharisees, telling me I don't know Scripture, and claiming me an elitist are all ad hominems and therefore totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion.

Did not the Pharisees believe that the scriptures was the way to God? That they placed far more emphasis on the scriptures than a personal relationship with God? Did they not try and impress others with their eloquence? Can you apply this to yourself? I'm not trying to say you are like everything about the Pharisees. That would be correct but I believe the aspect I am talking about is correct. If not, can you explain why? I didn't say you didn't know scriptures. I believe you just don't know the context of it.

I already explained how everything has both an absolute and relative nature and how that is not contradictory. Change without consistency is capriciousness, uniformity without diversity or variation is insensitive, blind Hence, both the absolute and relative natures require each other. That's why we all have them. And I provided you with concrete examples in a previous post. Nothing real can be described by reference to only one pole. Seemingly contradictory adjectives may be applied to an identity, provided they denote different aspects. Hence, something can be both hot and cold, as in an ice-cream Sundae. It just depends on which aspects you are speaking of.

You say we both have absolute and relative natures, and that is correct, but we are not God. We aren't the source of holiness and aren't absolute only.

I already explained how Malachi 3:5-7 refers to both an absolute and relative dimension to God. The passage you bring up from Numbers does suggest God is wholly immutable. But, as I said, the Bible provides only snap shots of God, which often conflict. And it is very possible, he author of Numbers had in mind only the absolute side of God.

If the Numbers authority mentioned the relative side as well then he'd be contradicting himself because according to the Number's author, there is no relative side. He is clearly saying that. Humans have a relative nature, not God as he is saying. He said they are not like us humans.

Yes, Jesus had a relative nature. He could change and was deeply moved and affected by others.



Yes, people are fallible and have had fallible ideas about God. A prime example is the notion that God is wholly immutable. And I have shown why this is false.

How is that relative? Does this mean Jesus's values swayed according to who He had contact with? I've give you an example of a relative nature that will be clear. Some people believe God was just to kill the Egyptians and kill the first born sons. They needed to be punished. They needed to be inflicted with horrors like plagues. Then on the other flip side, others believe this is an appalling action. How could God kill innocence like children? They didn't do anything wrong! They see this as proof of an evil God. So the relative nature of God is that he is both good and evil. However, is this true? Does Jesus say this is true? No, Satan is the author of evil. So how can God have both an absolute and relative nature? It's not God who has a relative nature, it is people's interpretation of His nature.

Does my explanation of what Jesus said about having faith like a child make sense to you?

So are you going to clarify for me who Yahweh really is?