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?

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 374 by Joe1950]

First, you claim that doctrine evolves (Post 371), then here you say it doesn't. That's a contradiction. What gives?

Much depends upon what branch of a particular religion you are talking about. Modern Christendom runs the whole gambit from liberal to conservative. Liberal Christians, such as myself, stress a healthy skepticism for dogma, an emphasis on creativity, and interfaith, interreligious dialogues based on mutual understanding. Of the academic world of theology, it has been said, since the 60's, that there is no orthodoxy, that everything is up from grabs. As I believe I mentioned earlier, I am a neo-classical theist and we are busy giving the doctrine of God a major face lift. However, on the right wing of Christendom, in the Bible Belt, for example, you would find great resistance to questioning of their traditional dogmas. If you are PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA). as I am, then yes, we accept the ordination of women, gays, and lesbians. If you were more conservative, a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or the Presbyterian Church America, then such ordination would be viewed as apostasy. I am also a Unitarian, and the Unitarian Church downplays dogma. We are the bring-you-own-theology church. So, again, it all depends upon which specific religious group you are talking about.

I agree with you that on the surface posts 371 and 374 may seem contradictory. Let me try to explain the apparent contradiction.
When I say that "doctrines change" I am referring to the ideas you just expressed in the preceding paragraph. Over time there are different interpretations of the religious "truth". Different groups create their own interpretations depending on their culture, society, understanding of science, etc.
But what does not change is the claimed basis for the doctrine. In all cases the proponents of any doctrine claim that the basis of their belief is the word of god. So, they use the same (unfounded) basis for their conclusions. That they know the will of god.
While it seems contradictory I am talking about 2 different things. Conclusions which seem to change over time. And the CLAIM that these conclusions are based on the word of god, which all three religions of the Old Testament claim as the ultimate authority for their beliefs.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 380 by hoghead1]



[center]
Deeply paranoid, jealous, evil, insane, vengeful ... in other words : "God".[/center]

I certainly agree that the Bible attributes change and deep emotion to God. However, I also find that the classical or traditional model of God, the God of the major church fathers, creeds, and confessions, is assumed to be wholly immutable, void of body, parts, passion, compassion, etc.

Well, they got that from the Bible, where God seems to change and has deep emotions. Theologians love nothing better than to make up new kinds of interpretations for the stories.

But in the Bible, God acts like a crazy, evil, unstable psychopath who demands worship OR ELSE. In one scene, God gets so deeply emotional that he drowns almost ever living creature on the planet.

Who cares if he changes his mind or not?
Just try to stay under the radar.. if you can.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 381 by Joe1950]

Well, that is a bit stereotypical. In point of fact, there have been three basic models of ultimate authority in Christendom. There is church-type Christianity, where the church is the ultimate authority. Augustine once said that if you were on a desert island, having only the Bible, you could not be saved. You needed the teachings of the church, additional sources of revelation, in order to be saved. There is sect-type Christianity, where the Bible is appealed to as the ultimate authority. And there is mystical-type Christianity, where one's transcendental experiences are appealed to as ultimate authority. In addition, down through the ages, Christendom has been deeply influenced by philosophy. For example, Hellenic philosophy and standards of perfection, not Scripture, was the basic source for the traditional or classical picture or model of God as he is in his own nature. Although the Reformers stressed sect-type Christendom, Calvin said that he would not have believed, had he not read the teachings of Augustine and he frequently cites Augustine as the major authority to validate his (Calvin's) theology.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 383 by hoghead1]

Are you suggesting that a Christian need not refer to god as the ultimate authority, no matter what his or her particular school of thought?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 384 by Joe1950]

Are you suggesting that a Christian need not refer to god as the ultimate authority, no matter what his or her particular school of thought?

If God always changes his mind, who cares?
He's going to be quite unstable.

One minute the god will be happy, and the next, he will drown everyone.
Like it say in the book.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 384 by Joe1950]

No, that is definitely not at all what I said. I was speaking about Scripture. And Scripture is a book about God, but not God. I was also trying to clarify what ultimate authorities Scripture look to about God.

[marco]

[Replying to post 379 by marco]

I certainly agree that the Bible attributes change and deep emotion to God. However, I also find that the classical or traditional model of God, the God of the major church fathers, creeds, and confessions, is assumed to be wholly immutable, void of body, parts, passion, compassion, etc. I think it's pretty clear that, as a neo-classical theologian, I challenge that model. However, if you are inclined toward classical theism, I am interested in hearing your case. I say "if" because I'm not clear on whether your position is atheism or some form of classical theism.

I believe that the traditional model of God attributes mercy to him, albeit irrationally sometimes. People in the past awarded the most fearsome of deities lovely names - such as to the Furies, called the Eumenides or kindly ones, which they weren't.

I am not atheistic in that, unlike Dawkins, I cannot make definitive claims about the existence of a deity but I find Yahweh and his relatives imperfect creations of man. Your creation is a sophisticated attempt to undo the obvious flaws. It explains and in explaining pleases. It is not a discovery of God but an invention. What more can I say?


There are those who intriguingly are "called in the night" and maintain a personal relationship with another dimension, naturally deifying their discovery. I am prepared to accept that, as Newton remarked, we have discovered a few shiny pebbles on the beach while a great ocean lies before us undiscovered. Our scepticism may one day be corrected into truth, but I won't see it, at least not in my present corporeal form. But who knows?

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 384 by Joe1950]

No, that is definitely not at all what I said. I was speaking about Scripture. And Scripture is a book about God, but not God. I was also trying to clarify what ultimate authorities Scripture look to about God.

OK. So if you do not accept the bible as divinely inspired I see your point. But that does place you well out of the mainstream of religious thought of all three religions that are based on the Old Testament. A book of stories designed to teach lessons about god and how to live. Got it.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 384 by Joe1950]

Are you suggesting that a Christian need not refer to god as the ultimate authority, no matter what his or her particular school of thought?

If God always changes his mind, who cares?
He's going to be quite unstable.


One minute the god will be happy, and the next, he will drown everyone.
Like it say in the book.

Well, there is no need to think that god changes her mind willy-nilly. She may change her mind only when necessary,to help humans who have acquired more scientific knowledge for example. Maybe god told people not to eat pork , as a general rule, because they did not understand the dangers of trichinosis. Now that science has helped humans figure out that they should cook meat thoroughly she has changed her mind on that particular injunction. God is evolving as circumstances change.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 387 by marco]

[center]
It's too bad God couldn't just lay off the sauce.
He was a pretty nice guy when he was sober, you know.[/center]

I believe that the traditional model of God attributes mercy to him, albeit irrationally sometimes.

You think God was sometimes irrational?
Bit of an understatement, don't you think?

God was sugar and spice and everything nice UNTIL he had too much of that divinely brew.

Then watch out.

God got pretty abusive when he got drunk.
Do you figure they had easy access to booze back in the day?