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 389 by Joe1950]

[center]

She moves in quite mysterious ( and quite nasty ) ways[/center]

Well, there is no need to think that god changes her mind willy-nilly.

There is also no need to call the Christian "God" a "she", either.

I have two daughters, and I am a feminist.
Had no choice.

I don't really care, but in the Bible, the god is MALE for some reason. He has these perfectly formed male genitalia. He even perfectly sired perfect Jesus magically with magic perfect sperm delivered by a perfect angel. She didn't really want it, but after a while, I think the story goes that she perfectly liked it. Perfect rapes are pretty darn perfect or so I've perfectly heard.

So, if you are talking about the Christian god, get with the program here.
It's male. It's always been male.

Women are quite... well, second place citizens in these fine stories, right?

Top ten list of evil Bible women

She may change her mind only when necessary,to help humans who have acquired more scientific knowledge for example.

If you think that God HAS to be nice, then you are smack dab in Euthyphro country.

_____________

Look.

Just how many assumptions are we going to have to make in order to preserve this perfect being business?

You chastised me for what you thought was making ONE.

_____________

[marco]

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

I've no idea what this epigraph means or why it's there.

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?

No, I don't think that; you do, by misreading. 'Albeit irrationally' refers of course to the subject of the main clause, "traditional model". So it is the model that makes the attribution irrationally at times, not Marco.

Do you figure they had easy access to booze back in the day?

Perhaps you are reading somebody else's post since nothing I have said is the possible inspiration for this question.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 392 by marco]

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

I've no idea what this epigraph means or why it's there.

My whole idea there was what I like to call "making a point".

Maybe you had trouble with it because it wasn't an epigraph, but an analogy.
The god being represented in the Bible acts like an abusive drunk.

( I'm kinda familiar with those )

Very nice psychopath when sober, perhaps, but dangerous when on the sauce.
But of course, psychopaths don't really need booze to snap off like that.

But a loss of inhibition doesn't hurt the snapping, either.
Everyone here seems to assume the god of the Bible is supposed to represent someone nice.

Me?

I'd stay nice and FAR from a god like that.. just kneel and scrape and go far away.

The crazy god drowned all of the planet, but then, after his forty day tantrum was all over, he gave us rainbows so that we can remember how nice he really is.

See the pretty rainbows?

That's the guy who drowned everyone on the planet who gave us that.. I like the pretty colors. Too bad he had to drown all those evil folks, though. Too bad for HIM, right?
[center]

Kneel and scrape, bow down and PRAY he don't do his Job thingy on you today.[/center]

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

No, I don't think that; you do, by misreading. 'Albeit irrationally' refers of course to the subject of the main clause, "traditional model". So it is the model that makes the attribution irrationally at times, not Marco.

Ooops, you're right.
I did misread.

Now, I think you were saying that the people who interpret the Bible are not always doing so very rationally. Thanks for correcting me on that.

I have to agree.

Maybe a more rational explanation for God's behavior would be "psychotic nasty drunk".

I wonder if there were a lot of those kinds of "fathers" back in the day that they might wanted to represent? You know.. a dangerous authority figure.

And we NEED access to a lot of hootch.. because it would just ruin my theory if they didn't have any hard lemonade or something yummy like that. ( probably not much ice, so maybe just the wine and other fermented yuck )

Do you figure they had easy access to booze back in the day?

Perhaps you are reading somebody else's post since nothing I have said is the possible inspiration for this question.

You are NOTHING if not inspirational, Marco.
Kudos.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 387 by marco]

True, classical theism claimed that God was loving and merciful. But thse were killed with a million qualifiers. In Anselm, God appears compassionate, but is definitely not so in his own nature, as he is void of all passion. God appears to be compassionate, from our end of it, but is truly ice cold in his own nature.

When you try and write off things by saying they are just your invention, that is an Aunt Fanny claim, i.e., it applies to everyone here and just about everything we say. Hence, I can easily turn around and say you claim "I cannot make definite claims about the existence of a deity" is simply an invention on your part, an explanation you invented that pleases you.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 388 by Joe1950]

No, again you are misrepresenting what I have said. My position is that the Bible is divinely inspired, though not inerrant. I also pointed out that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics or systematic theology. Hence, we need to use more than just the Bible in reaching our conclusions. And that has always been the case with Christendom, even among sect-type Christians, who claim the Bible is their sole authority. What those individuals claim to believe does have a basis Scripture, true, but their beliefs also come from many other sources, such as the church fathers, the teachings of their church, etc.

[marco]

When you try and write off things by saying they are just your invention, that is an Aunt Fanny claim, i.e., it applies to everyone here and just about everything we say. Hence, I can easily turn around and say you claim "I cannot make definite claims about the existence of a deity" is simply an invention on your part, an explanation you invented that pleases you.

Yes, this is the argument used in philosophy to indicate a hypothesis is bogus, when
it has universal application and so says nothing new. We can argue that all actions are selfish by finding a selfish reason for every act done, so that the claim is quite empty.
The statement about the provenance of your particular God is not so much a hypothesis as a factual observation, but a statement that says God is this or is that is indeed a hypothesis. It is certainly not logically valueless to observe that your God is of your own making. If you concede that this is glaringly obvious, then we are discussing your creation, as we might discuss your poem. Whether he changes his mind will depend entirely on the qualities you have attributed to him. IF, on the other hand, you contend that he is NOT your invention, then my statement is challengeable and is therefore not empty of meaning. It would be of huge interest, of course, to examine that challenge.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 394 by hoghead1]

the existence of a deity" is simply an invention on your part, an explanation you invented that pleases you.

Yep, pretty much that.

I enjoy your inventions.

I think you do to.
Am I right?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 395 by hoghead1]

My position is that the Bible is divinely inspired, though not inerrant.

You are hereby challenged to defend that proposition.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 395 by hoghead1]

I also pointed out that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics or systematic theology.

[center]
You are hereby being challenged to defend the proposition.[/center]

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 396 by marco]

I'm simply saying that if you want to be very hard-headed about it, then absolutely anything anyone says here, one way or the other, contains some real degree of speculation, is a matter of opinion. However, that does not mean everyone is talking through their hats either. The goal here is for each side to present their arguments as to whether or not God changes. My claim is that God is in fact a synthesis of both consistency and also change, that classical theism is lopsided, and in previous posts, I have presented my case why I say that. If you wish to rebut my arguments, you are are welcome to it. However, my concern is that your posts seemed largely oriented to debunking the whole idea of God or at least the notion we can ascribe any attributes whatsoever to God as well as making the lame claim that if others couldn't claim a direct, immediate revelatory experience as the source of their ideas, all their claims are purely their own invention and therefore worthless.

I also think that you and I have gotten way off the OP here. The OP assumes God exists and then is asking whether God changes. I don't know about yu, but I would like to get back to that.