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?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 416 by Joe1950]

I agree. The problem has been that the church fathers set up checklists of seemingly contradictory attributes, such as changing-unchanging, and then went down the list, ascribing only one side or pole to God, as I mentioned in another post. That is a lopsided concept of perfection, as nothing real can be described only one pole, and each pole represents a virtue. Hence, I view God as a synthesis of consistency and change.

Malachi 3:5-7 is a good example of what I mean. "I, the lord, change not" means God has certain ultimate goals, and in that fixity of purpose does not vary. But rather than denying change in God, such a fixity insists upon change. "Return to me, that I might return to you" means if we change in such-and-such a way, God will also change accordingly.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 417 by marco]

Sad, but true. The biblical picture of God can be anything but loving, though it at least attributes change to God. After all, even a brutal dictator has to change to adapt to his subjects. That is why I do not consider the Bible inerrant or a complete revelation of God. I think the Bible provides an important insight, in its emphasis on God changing and experiencing deep emotion. I also think it strongly implies a relativistic model of god. Most of the biblical predication is relative predication. You can't be a father without children, a king without subjects, a creator without a creation, etc. And I think it dos great service in providing passages where God is essentially loving. However, divinely inspirited as the Bible may be, it is still the product of a semi-barbaric culture, which often the scope of its revelatory power.

[Danmark]

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."

One of the greatest tools Christian debaters have handed on a platter to the non theist is the insistence that God does not change, or does not change his mind. They are correct because an actual God would be unchanging; 'he'd' be beyond change.

However, the Bible presents a very different image of its imagined 'god.' This is demonstrated in the very beginning of that collection, in Genesis:

In Chapter 1 we find,
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

By the 6th Chapter 'God' has reversed himself.

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.�

For the Christian the change in 'God' is even more dramatic. In fact, the change is so complete an entirely new religion must be created.

As an atheist I have to defend my Christian friends on this one. I stated in a previous post that there is nothing inherently superior of being "unchanging". In fact, isn't the ability to adapt and adjust a sign of higher intelligence than the inability to do so? In my way of thinking, a god that can change his mind (or more correctly adapt) is superior to one who refuses to change no matter what.
The god of the Bible responds to new situations. He does not really "change his mind" as much as he acknowledges new situations and acts accordingly. Those humans are being bad. Kill em. Is he really changing his mind or just responding?
Of course, you could argue that a really smart god would not have made humans in the first place. He would have anticipated the problems caused by these beings he created. But then, nobody's perfect !
(PS. I used the word perfect just to get a rise out of the CAT!).

Joe, how do YOU define 'God?' You speak of God as if 'he' were just some very powerful, human like alien or something like a Roman or Greek 'god.'

McCulloch puts it well:

Most definitions of God, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, etc. preclude his being able to change his mind. The God described in the Bible changed his mind.

The conclusion is trivially obvious. The God described in the Bible is not God.

For a god of Christian or Jewish theology to be changing, growing, 'he' is not God at all. Maybe "a god," but not GOD. To be omniscient, he had to already know everything, including the future. But the God of the Bible acts like a Roman god; i.e., very human like, at times stupid, angry, mean; at other times loving and gracious. The 'god' of the Bible is obviously a human creation, created in man's image.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 416 by Joe1950]

I agree. The problem has been that the church fathers set up checklists of seemingly contradictory attributes, such as changing-unchanging, and then went down the list, ascribing only one side or pole to God, as I mentioned in another post. That is a lopsided concept of perfection, as nothing real can be described only one pole, and each pole represents a virtue. Hence, I view God as a synthesis of consistency and change.

Malachi 3:5-7 is a good example of what I mean. "I, the lord, change not" means God has certain ultimate goals, and in that fixity of purpose does not vary. But rather than denying change in God, such a fixity insists upon change. "Return to me, that I might return to you" means if we change in such-and-such a way, God will also change accordingly.

This is an amusing and typical example of the feckless, amateurish and crippled mental gymnastics some Christian apologists employ.

To attempt to claim that "I, the lord, change not" means in fact he does change, is absurd. Claiming it only means 'his' "ultimate goals" don't change is transparent sophistry. One of 'his' goals was create man and life on earth. He then repented and decided to kill all life. Then 'he' changed 'his' mind again and decided to kill only 99.99% of life, sparing one family of each species. This is the stuff of human myth, not cosmic reality.

There are many Biblical references to this unchanging God. One is from Numbers 23:19:
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
This God in fact not only changes 'his' mind, he lies. He lied to Abraham [who also was a liar] when 'he' told Abraham to kill his son when 'he' had no intention of letting Abraham kill. Deceit in the Bible is an ongoing theme. God champions liars. He supports Abraham when he lies to Abimelech, claiming Sarah is only his sister. God supports Jacob tho' he lies to Isaac to steal Esau's blessing. Jesus acknowledges this dishonest character of his people when in John 1:47 he says to Nathanael
“Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!�

[Joe1950]

.

Joe, how do YOU define 'God?' You speak of God as if 'he' were just some very powerful, human like alien or something like a Roman or Greek 'god.'

That is the question this OP is trying to resolve to some extent. For the sake of this discussion I accept the general concept of god as accepted many Christians, Jews and Muslims.
An all powerful, all knowing being. The creator of the universe.
The question, as I see it , is whether an all-powerful being can change. Is it essential to a belief in god to accept that god is static and set in his omniscient ways? Or can god change and adapt to new conditions as the universe evolves?
That is a radical new way of describing god, in my opinion. But that seems to be the direction Hogshead is taking, as opposed to the more traditional fundamentalist definition.
I am not evading your question since I do not believe in the existence of god in the first place, but I am using the more traditional viewpoint when I speak of her...er...him.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 424 by Danmark]

Well, there sure must be a lot of crippled theologians out there, including myself, because the biblical example I used is used by a number of leading theologians to say to demonstrate that the biblical God is seen as a synthesis of both consistency and change, as opposed to classical theists, who argue take the position that God is wholly immutable or apologists who insist God is immutable, citing only those passages claiming divine immutability.
In the Bible, especially the OT, God is presented as continually condemning sinfulness and disobedience (fixity of purpose). Hence, the "I, the Lord, change not." On the other hand, if they repent, then God changes, becomes forgiving.

Also, some of your language, labeling us and other theists as crippled, etc., isn't particularly respectful. That's one of the problems I, as a theist, have in dealing with this forum.

[Danmark]

.

Joe, how do YOU define 'God?' You speak of God as if 'he' were just some very powerful, human like alien or something like a Roman or Greek 'god.'

That is the question this OP is trying to resolve to some extent. For the sake of this discussion I accept the general concept of god as accepted many Christians, Jews and Muslims.
An all powerful, all knowing being. The creator of the universe.

If God knows everything than he cannot change because he already knows everything that is or will be. If he already knows everything then there is no new information he can absorb that can evoke change.

[Danmark]

.

Joe, how do YOU define 'God?' You speak of God as if 'he' were just some very powerful, human like alien or something like a Roman or Greek 'god.'

That is the question this OP is trying to resolve to some extent. For the sake of this discussion I accept the general concept of god as accepted many Christians, Jews and Muslims.
An all powerful, all knowing being. The creator of the universe.

If God knows everything than he cannot change because he already knows everything that is or will be. If he already knows everything then there is no new information he can absorb that can evoke change.

I simply claim the passages:

"I, the lord, change not"
and
"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind" should not be twisted to mean their opposites.

I am well aware that some Christian theologians, scholars, and apologists find certain passages of 'scripture' inconvenient and try to render their plain meanings to be the opposite of what they are. The fact that many do so does not change scripture. A lie told repeatedly is still a lie. It may convince some. It is not persuasive to me.

[marco]

Sad, but true. The biblical picture of God can be anything but loving, though it at least attributes change to God. After all, even a brutal dictator has to change to adapt to his subjects. That is why I do not consider the Bible inerrant or a complete revelation of God. I think the Bible provides an important insight, in its emphasis on God changing and experiencing deep emotion.

Falsehood is pervasive, Hoghead. The parson's egg, good in parts, is a bad egg. I cannot see the point of foraging for truth in a book whose contents are contradictory or false. The good bits don't redeem the bad, or rescue the entire opus.

And I think it does great service in providing passages where God is essentially loving. However, divinely inspirited as the Bible may be, it is still the product of a semi-barbaric culture, which often the scope of its revelatory power.

Many would say that divine inspiration should have wiped away error. That you concede it is "a product of a semi-barbaric culture" makes it surprising that a disciple of a highly advanced culture should take lessons from it, other than perhaps to observe the passage of history or the ways and thought processes of the past. One can find psychological lessons in Greek myths more easily than one can discover truth in the Bible.

[Joe1950]

.

Joe, how do YOU define 'God?' You speak of God as if 'he' were just some very powerful, human like alien or something like a Roman or Greek 'god.'

That is the question this OP is trying to resolve to some extent. For the sake of this discussion I accept the general concept of god as accepted many Christians, Jews and Muslims.
An all powerful, all knowing being. The creator of the universe.

If God knows everything than he cannot change because he already knows everything that is or will be. If he already knows everything then there is no new information he can absorb that can evoke change.

1. Well, if god knows everything then he already knows that he will change his mind!
2. But he can still change his mind as long as he knows that he will change his mind. To us mere mortals that may seem like a contradiction. I am not a professional logician (is there such an animal?) so I wonder if my first two statements would pass the test of "logic". Is there a logical contradiction in god knowing that god will change god's mind?