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?

[marco]

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 you, but I would like to get back to that.

Quite. We were discussing your attribution of qualities to God and these qualities would determine whether God changed or didn't. I am saying we are therefore discussing your personal flavouring or your art work.

But perhaps Yahweh gives greater scope for discussion on mind change since we can easily find instances to back up our points. With Process, we've just your word for it.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 391 by Blastcat]

Genesis 1:27.
God created men and women in her own image. Not just males. No reason to assume god is male. It is a tradition, true. But the OP is about whether or not god can change. Might god not be a transsexual? Or non sexual? Metrosexual. Bisexual. Or could not god rotate between being one gender and another? Because god gives life to humans I choose to think she is a female.

An unrelated point: Might god be barred from using the bathrooms in North Carolina?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 400 by hoghead1]



[center]
Just a little bit of the Blarney to help us sleep[/center]

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.

Some real degree?
Yeah, like 100%

Speculation is really cool.. for a little while, then it get superbly boring.
Classic god, your newer better god.. yawn.

Why don't you tell us that story again, uncle Bob?
It's bedtime.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 401 by marco]

In earlier posts, I presented my process rationale, however. So please don't give me this we-just-have -your word-for-it stuff. If you wish to challenge my position, you are welcome. But then the burden would fall on you to offer rebuttals to my arguments, which you have yet to do.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 404 by hoghead1]

In earlier posts, I presented my process rationale, however. So please don't give me this we-just-have -your word-for-it stuff.

We just have your word for it.

[marco]

[Replying to post 401 by marco]

In earlier posts, I presented my process rationale, however. So please don't give me this we-just-have -your word-for-it stuff. If you wish to challenge my position, you are welcome. But then the burden would fall on you to offer rebuttals to my arguments, which you have yet to do.

Perhaps my mode of expression is less than it used to be. The reference to "your word for it" is in regard to the qualities of God that you, through your preferred theology, have chosen to give him. These qualities are already pre-determined by the format of invention you've used to get to God. I am not interested in according gold stars for invention; rebuttal comes with the observation that the qualities were chosen by you and so are hardly of universal importance. Clever they may be, appropriate they may seem, comfort they may offer but they are of modern manufacture, and presumably God was around a lot longer than his new clothes.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 406 by marco]

I didn't say just take my word for it. I presented a rationale why it makes sense dynamic, relativistic attributes to God. If you wish to rebut my rationale, you can. But you have yet to do that. Just you saying, "Well, that's no good because it is something you and others thought up" is no rebuttal. It's just an Aunt Fanny statement anyway, addresses what anyone could say here, and so adds nothing to the discussion.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 402 by Joe1950]

Interesting point. Traditionally, God has been thought of as exclusively male and then viewed s the stereotypic strong male--rigid, unemotional, manipulative. Consequently, I like to think of God as female, as this brings out the passive, empathic, receptive dimensions to God, concepts sadly lacking to classical theism. Incidentally, the Christian mystical tradition often thought of God as female.
I view th34 universe as the body of God. I don't know of any other model that does justice to God's great intimacy withal things. God enjoys an unsurpassably direct, immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling, and that, of course, includes all sexual feeling. Hence, God is continually changing.

Can God be barred from bathrooms? Any time someone is knocked down, God is knocked down. Any time someone is unjustly treated, God is unjustly treated. And that is not weakness on God's part. It is testimony to God's radical sensitivity and love. God is no fair-weather friend, God shares in all our sorrows as well as joys. To me, that is the meaning of teh Incarnation.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 407 by hoghead1]




[center]I'm going to repeat this one more time just in case I forget it myself[/center]

It's just an Aunt Fanny statement anyway, addresses what anyone could say here, and so adds nothing to the discussion.

I think we all got it after the first few times.
Repeating it again adds very LITTLE to the discussion.

[marco]

[Replying to post 406 by marco]

Just you saying, "Well, that's no good because it is something you and others thought up" is no rebuttal. It's just an Aunt Fanny statement anyway, addresses what anyone could say here, and so adds nothing to the discussion.

As I have said I believe you are misusing a recognised technique in philosophy for debunking a hypothesis. If the statement is always true and not open to any counter argument, the statement is worthless. The statement: "You cannot discuss the existence of God because we are only human," is such a statement. However, to question the qualities you ascribe to the God you invent is not an "Aunt Fanny" statement; it attacks the attempt to go beyond speculation about existence and endow God with qualities. One might as well give God wings and claim truth.