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?

[shnarkle]

How many times does a person have to explain that God can choose NOT to know something.....so that He can GENUINELY offer to EVERYONE the gift of eternal life if they would just choose to take it?

They can't choose to take it, and even if they could, God wouldn't accept it. This is central to Paul's doctrine of election. No one can please God in the flesh. If it's a choice on our part then it is a work. A gift contingent on our work is a works based salvation.

If He absolutely knew they wouldn't take it, what is the point in OFFERING it to them????

He doesn't really. God is generous in offering eternal life, but just like the sower who broadcasts his seed generously, the seed that lands on hard ground or is choked by thorns is not going to produce a harvest. Jesus preached using parables because it isn't given for everyone to understand the gospel message. We don't choose him, he chooses us.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 178 by Justin108]

That is exactly the point I was making in earlier posts. If you hold humans can't grasp God, then anything we say about God, one way or the other, is flawed and wrong, and we can say nothing at all.

YES!!!!!! This is where atheism comes into the picture. Atheist are closer to the truth in that they know that whatever ideas, concepts, or imaginings a theist comes up with are always only going to be just ideas, concepts or imaginings. None of these things are God. Even though a deist or theist doesn't believe in a created god, they turn right around and believe in an idea, or a concept of God.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 188 by Monta]


[center]
Water magic, I tell ya![/center]

I am not into fiction like yself and have problem as to how to respond to yr post.

That's good.

What I do sometimes is to go take a shower.. Somehow.. I seem to just come up with ideas in there. Also.. possible hit tunes.

Perhaps by learning something about God of the Bible
you'd know what to criticize.

The Bible has fascinated people ever since it was written.
It's so poetic, so full of honking great stories.. makes you think.

So does Shakespeare, so does the The Bhagavad-Gita , so does The Way of Chuang Tzu, so do the Diamond Sutras.

So does "A Treatise of Human Nature" , and if you like, so does "Star Wars" and a beautiful night sky. Some scientists get a kick out of earth worms. We can learn a LOT from studying earth worms and fruit flies.

My point is that there is more to life than just one book.
The Bible IS a very nice book.

I've read a lot of nice books.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  But I have to wonder why do you pretend to know what I know about the Bible?
  Do you often pretend to read people's minds like that?
  
  

____________

[William]

[Replying to post 178 by Justin108]

That is exactly the point I was making in earlier posts. If you hold humans can't grasp God, then anything we say about God, one way or the other, is flawed and wrong, and we can say nothing at all.

YES!!!!!! This is where atheism comes into the picture. Atheist are closer to the truth in that they know that whatever ideas, concepts, or imaginings a theist comes up with are always only going to be just ideas, concepts or imaginings. None of these things are God. Even though a deist or theist doesn't believe in a created god, they turn right around and believe in an idea, or a concept of God.

That is what happens when GOD is separated from everyone else, rather than everyone else understanding that they are all aspects of GOD (and thus one another).

Essentially we are in the position of being an aspect of GOD which is trying to find itself - to discover what that means etc.

GOD as an idea isn't GOD if it is not inclusive but only exclusive.

Like the universe, we are never going to know everything that there is to know about it but we can ascertain a fair amount about it anyway - enough to deal with it as it is - and we can imagine any various kind of scenario which could have taken place and could be taking place within it which is possible but can never be proven.

Ideas of GOD take on the same qualities - but we are dealing with Consciousness within, throughout (and possibly also outside of) the universe.

In that, there is no point in gazing at a far distant planet and wanting to be there. GOD is right here. Keep it local.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 194 by William]




[center]You might have an interest in what I like to call "skepticism"[/center]

That is what happens when GOD is separated from everyone else, rather than everyone else understanding that they are all aspects of GOD (and thus one another).

I can't possibly KNOW that I am "an aspect of God", if I do not KNOW there is a "God" out there.

As a skeptic, I won't pretend to know what I really don't.

So, if you DO know that there is a "God" out there that we can POSSIBLY be an aspect of, you should be able to demonstrate it.

If you can't demonstrate that a God exists.. then your quite wonderful hypothesis falls flat.

Get in line.. lots of people make untested hypotheses.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to William]

I am inclined to agree with you. Classical theism, the traditional model or picture we have of God as he or she is in his or her own nature, sharply separated God from the universe. God and the world were like oil and water. They don't mix. Hence, the via negative or negative theology, which argued creaturely attributes cannot be ascribed to God. What creatures have, God definitely does not. As such, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, we can know only what God is not, not what God is. And then, the criticism of Thomas is that he really makes God meaningless.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 187 by Justin108]

I am inclined to agree with you. As I said in a previous post, for God to ignore facts, choose to turn his back and not know what's going on, would render God imperfect, not doing his job, and then we would be superior to God because we are in the know, know something God doesn't.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 192 by shnarkle]

I don't see how that makes atheists necessarily closer to the truth. Atheists are also speculating as well. And atheists generally have a concept of God, which is what they are rejecting. Question is, Is their concept valid?

Where atheists do have a point is in their argument that if you can't give God an affirmative content, can't say what God is, then the concept is meaningless. You might as well say you believe is some undefined X. And that is the problem with saying God is totally beyond all humanity. That's where classical theism made a big mistake. It assumed God is the complete and total negation of creation. Creaturely, finite attributes cannot be ascribed to God. Hence, as St. Thomas Aquinas, says, we can know only what God is not, not what God is. But unless we can say something positive and affirmative about God, then the whole notion of God becomes philosophically meaningless and religiously sterile, as none can worship a huge, dark, apophatic void.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 196 by hoghead1]




[center]

Dualism vs Monism[/center]

Classical theism, the traditional model or picture we have of God as he or she is in his or her own nature, sharply separated God from the universe. God and the world were like oil and water. They don't mix. .

I was reading something the other day... about dualism.. Like Buber's I and thou.. vs. Monism.... which seems to be a more Eastern concept.

Oddly, for those of us who don't believe in a supernatural realm.. we must be monists. There's only ONE kind of reality and we are in it. We are a part of it. I guess ... that's pantheism if we want to make a "god" out of reality.

I'm just not sure why the metaphor "god" would be useful to me, other than to remind me to take a more..."appreciative" stance. But I'm not sure that I need a god idea to have that "reverence" and "awe" and those emotional responses I associate with the "spiritual".

However, at least intuitively, I can see a tension between "I" and what I observe... that 'other thing", that "thou".

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Why do we need the concept "God" post-superstition?
  
  

____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 198 by hoghead1]

[center]

Opinions about atheists[/center]

I don't see how that makes atheists necessarily closer to the truth. Atheists are also speculating as well. And atheists generally have a concept of God, which is what they are rejecting. Question is, Is their concept valid?

You aren't addressing the question to the right people.
THEISTS have the god concepts. Ask THEM what they mean by "God".

That question should be asked of THEISTS, my friend.
Atheism is a reaction to the concept "theism", not the OTHER WAY AROUND.


[center]
Whatever theism is... atheism is not[/center]


While it might be fun to speculate as to what atheists think.. overgeneralizing like that is rather pointless. Atheists don't all think alike.

And it might just be true that SOME atheists think precisely the way that you portray.
But.. you have actual air breathing thinking atheists in here.

Why don't you ask?

Where atheists do have a point is in their argument that if you can't give God an affirmative content, can't say what God is, then the concept is meaningless.

Some people label themselves "Ignostic" for that reason.
I don't want to label myself with a word that starts with "IG".

Doesn't trip off the tongue.

But as an agnostic, atheist and skeptic, I agree that the term "God" is pretty well meaningless. Everyone seems to have a different flavor.

What we get are METAPHORS... and very little else.

Some people are way better poets than others.

You might as well say you believe is some undefined X.

I don't agree.

I think that "X" has way too many definitions, all of them vague, some of them contradictory. When a term like "God" can be used in oh so many ways.. it's just too vague to be very useful. Pantheists, for example use the word "God" to mean something like the universe, or nature or just "all".

Some people use the term "God" only to emphasize a point, as in "OMG".

And that is the problem with saying God is totally beyond all humanity.

It's poetry.

I think a very common use of the term "God" is as a metaphor for something that is.... pure mystery. It's what we DON'T know that some of us call "God".

God might equal ignorance.
That's not very nice poetry.
It sounds very ugly when I put it like that.

As an agnostic, an atheist, and a skeptic, I acknowledge that there is LOTS that I don't know. I look up to the night sky in awe of what I don't know... and amazement at what I can. Science is fantastic. Humanity is fantastic. Why we are even HERE.. why there is ANYTHING... is amazing..and it gives me goosebumps.
[center]
But here we are, in spite of my wonderment.[/center]

As I get older, I get those feelings more and more, but what I don't do is to attach those feelings to some anthropomorphic ideal and then project them OUT. I believe that my feelings are IN.

All too many people confuse what is INSIDE with what is WITHOUT.

That's where classical theism made a big mistake.

I don't think that outdated forms of poetry can be called "mistakes". I consider the poetry of the Bible very beautiful, indeed. But time moves on.. we should update our poetry. We can now include a LOT more real into it because we KNOW a lot more real.

It assumed God is the complete and total negation of creation.

I think that ASSUMING a God is a huge mistake.
It doesn't matter WHAT KIND of God.

It's assuming that a metaphor is real that's wrong.

God might be a lovely metaphor.. but come ON... lets not confuse a metaphor for what it's supposed to represent. Sometimes, children get upset by fairy tales.. I've found myself having to explain to a very young child that these stories aren't REAL.

I used to think that my religious beliefs were real, because people I trusted TOLD me that they were. It was like the Santa conspiracy. I think it WAS well meant. But we have to grow out of that kind of magical thinking. As much as we might LIKE it to be, magic just ISN'T real. Boo hoo hoo for me.

We do know that people who write magical STORIES are very real indeed. Some of them are very RICH, too.

I think that many people are just very unsophisticated in their understanding of language. And I don't BLAME them.. understanding how language works is VERY difficult.

I will point to Wittgenstein.. and rest my case.

His "Tractatus" is based on the idea that philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language, and it tries to show what this logic is.

He gives me a headache.

Creaturely, finite attributes cannot be ascribed to God.

Oh, but we know what INFINITE characteristics are supposed to be like?

As an agnostic, I would say that I know NOTHING about the existence or characteristics of any gods or goddesses.
How do you know any of that?

Hence, as St. Thomas Aquinas, says, we can know only what God is not, not what God is.

He makes a case for "God's" non-existence.
I could say the same for ghosts.

I could say the same for the flying spaghetti monster and Nessy.

But unless we can say something positive and affirmative about God, then the whole notion of God becomes philosophically meaningless and religiously sterile, as none can worship a huge, dark, apophatic void.

I can.
I'll do it for a cup of coffee.
Better yet, make it beer.

But nature isn't exactly just a "void".
I found a whole lot of "stuff" within. ( When I am observing something.. I call it "without". ) Ok, the problem of identity gets confusing, too.

So do all the "hard" philosophical questions.

Now.. ironically, it can be described as within or without.
That's a language trick that I could play with ... that tension.. duality vs monism