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 298 by hoghead1]



[center]
Proving one's own ignorance, or "the argument from ignorance".[/center]

I hold that the universe is the body of God, because, as I have said, I don't know of any other model that does justice to God's omnipresence and sensitivity to all things.

A lack of imagination is not a good reason think that something is true.
You are making a case out of your ignorance, which is a fallacy.

In other words, your reasoning is wrong.

Just because as you say, you "don't know of any other model that does justice to God's omnipresence and sensitivity to all things", does not mean that YOUR model becomes true by magic. You would still have to prove that your model makes a lick of sense.

Your lack of knowledge ( ignorance ) doesn't prove pan-en-theism correct, my friend.
Not even close.

All it proves is that you don't know of a better model.
You have proved your ignorance, and nothing else.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 300 by Claire Evans]

I and a moderator have already spoken to you about the inappropriateness ad hominems. Yet you persist, here comparing me to a Pharisee. Since you can't seem to play by the rules of this discussion group, I'm done talking with you.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 295 by Monta]

No I didn't say a blanket equation could be drawn between God and the universe. Yes, I did say the universe can be identified with God, just as my body can be identified with me, is me. But it is not the whole of me. The universe is part of the being of God. God, however, transcends the universe, just as my mind transcends my body. My cells transmit all their feelings into my mind. Hence, in that sense mind and body are one. However, I have the freedom to choose where I will go with these feelings, how I am going to integrate them into that momentary unity of experience, which is myself. Same with God. God feels all the feelings in the universe and then unites or integrates all of them in a creative way into GOd's self, or momentary unity of experience. Moment to moment, God changes, just as moment to moment I change, am a different person. The "self" is a label for a society of perishing occasions.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 300 by Claire Evans]

I and a moderator have already spoken to you about the inappropriateness ad hominems. Yet you persist, here comparing me to a Pharisee. Since you can't seem to play by the rules of this discussion group, I'm done talking with you.

If I compare one aspect of a Pharisee to you, does not mean you have all the qualities of a Pharisee. You aren't a son of Satan like Jesus said of the Pharisees. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that you share this in common with a Pharisee: the belief that education is the way to God; that a lay person cannot be capable of critical thinking because they don't have the necessary education. Quotes from you:



" I add that higher education is absolutely essential, as it enables one to develop the necessary critical, analytical skills necessary for solid, smart thinking."


" I don't mean to sound condescending, but I have a doctorate in theology, plus publications. So I know I am well versed about who YHWH is and don't need to go running to some unspecified online source to find out. Who knows but that this online source ought to be reading some of my publications?"

Here is something I got online:

"God is quite clear in many passages of Scripture, and through the example of Jesus, that higher education is not beneficial for pastors. Ignoring all that God has written about the subject, most churches require at least a college degree if not a seminary degree for their pastor. Subconsciously, the church has bought into the belief that the educated few hold the key to understanding the deeper things of Scripture and that Christians need to look to the educated, who are mere men, for answers to the difficult questions and for spiritual understanding of the mysteries of Scripture. In the church there is a PhD pedestal in which those who have a PhD are elevated with respect and authority above other Christians in spiritual understanding and knowledge. The subconscious perception by many Christians is that spiritual understanding comes from other human beings rather than it being a free gift from the Holy Spirit which is where true spiritual understanding actually comes from."

"The way Jesus trained His disciples was totally different than a college or seminary education today. It was more of an apprenticeship, and could not be described as a formal education. At the end of their training with Jesus, they were still described as unlearned and ignorant men. However, their preaching brought thousands to a saving faith in Jesus and impacted the world. “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.� (Acts 4:13) God Himself gave us the example that education is not important. Jesus did not even attend the “elementary� school for Jewish boys that taught them how to read. “And the Jews marveled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? 16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.� (John 7:15-18) Jesus made it clear that He looked to the Father to give Him what to say. He did not speak from His own mind or from his education knowledge base."

http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/ ... cation.php

Think about this deeply. Do you believe anything written here applies to you?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 294 by Claire Evans]

I am not a pantheist, I am a pan-en-theist. I hold that the universe is the body of God, because, as I have said, I don't know of any other model that does justice to God's omnipresence and sensitivity to all things. Many "pantheists" just use God as another word the universe. That's why I say I'm a "pan-en-theist," meaing all in God. The universe is ontologically part of the being of God, but not the whole reality of God. God transcends the universe, just as I transcend my body. I think that is what Paul had in mind when he said our lives are hid in God. I also think that is what Paul meant in 1 Cor. 15:28:" that God may be all and in all."

So when the universe ends, will God no longer be omnipresent? How is God constrained to something finite? Can you not accept that God lives in another dimension separate from the material world and universe? And there may not even be one universe according to the multiverse theory. Since the universe will have an end, what happened before the beginning? Did God only become omnipresent when the universe came into existence?
1 Corinthians 15:28's "that God may be all and in all" doesn't mean He is in all of His creation. I think this is the context:

"...that God may be all in all.
Deliverance of the Kingdom to the Father at the end of time will complete the purpose of creation – that God may be all in all. “All in all� means that all things depend on God. The purpose of creation is God-centeredness, not man-centeredness. God is everything to everyone."

As for hidden in Christ...

"Paul elaborates on the reason for setting our minds on godly things. It is because we have died and our life is hidden with Christ in God. But what does this mean?

From what I understand of Scripture, it means that my fully redeemed heart, mind, soul, and body is hidden with Jesus. That is, it is not yet fully revealed.

Our eternal lives are secure in Christ.

but it also means that it is secure in Christ. To be hidden in Christ speaks of both that which is concealed (and yet to be revealed) as well as security."

https://carm.org/christianity/bible-stu ... -chapter-3

Here's another commentary:

https://utmost.org/the-hidden-life/

The idea of a wholly immaterial God can from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. In the Bible, God is attributed many body parts, which strongly suggests the ancient Hebrews viewed god as having a genuine physical dimension. Moses, for example, saw God's backside. The taboo against making idols does not deny God is a material being. Given that the universe is the body of God, and given that we can see only limited portions of it, then anything we say is going to be far less than the real thing.

Moses saw Yahweh's backside because he was a real being who could walk and talk. This is not the Father. He had to come as Jesus to be able to be human being born into this world.

If the Incarnation is truly revelatory of God, then it has to reveal God's general MO with creation, and that implies God is incarnate throughout the universe.

I don't know why you think that just because God had his own "MO" for Himself that it must automatically apply to all of creation. We aren't supernatural.

The biblical prediction of God is relative predication. You can't be a father without sons, a creator without a creation, a lover without someone to love. Hence, the Bible strongly implies that God is a social-relational being who needs the world to be complete.

And when the world is destroyed, then what? Is God no longer complete? He is not a God that relies on the material world as depicted in the scriptures:

John 18:36

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

He doesn't need an earthly kingdom. His kingdom is in heaven which is in another dimension. Heaven shall not be destroyed when the earth is.

Saying that God is supernatural and therefore breaks the laws of nature is right back to the God-world dualism, which I reject. How unfortunate God should ordain laws that he or she can't work in or through and therefore has to break to get anything done. That's why I argue god is supra-natural, the chief and highest example of all metaphysical principles. We are incarnate, but only in a very inferior sense. In sharp contrast, god is incarnate throughout the entire universe. We are sensitive, but only in a very inferior way. In contrast, God enjoys a direct, immediate response to any and all creatures feeling.

These laws need to be broken because He is a supernatural being. And a supernatural being is not bound by the laws of nature of earth. That is just what it is. Why do you assume God ordained these laws? It just is. In order to reach us as humans who are not supernatural, God had to send Jesus to break through the barrier between humans and the supernatural. And now with the Holy Spirit, God does not need to break barriers to have a relationship with Him because Jesus is the intermediary.

Us being incarnate is not Biblical sound. Who has taught you things?

[Blastcat]

[center]
Contradictory sentence[/center]


Statement number one:

No I didn't say a blanket equation could be drawn between God and the universe.

Statement number two:

Yes, I did say the universe can be identified with God,

Those two statements found in the very same sentence represent a contradiction.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Is the universe like god or not?
  
  

____________

[marco]

The universe is part of the being of God. God, however, transcends the universe, just as my mind transcends my body. ....... Same with God. God feels all the feelings in the universe and then unites or integrates all of them in a creative way into God's self, or momentary unity of experience.

Of course, this can be no more than a poetic idea of what a human thinks of God. Shakespeare wrote that "all the world's a stage" which gives a good parallel but we know the world is not a stage. In making statements that compare our modus operandi with that of God we are not building on solid axioms but on imagination and speculation. We cannot verify our claims and the best we can say is, like Shakespeare's stage, they seem to fit in with observation and feeling.

I think the complexity of the universe is much greater than this simple reduction.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 300 by Claire Evans]

I and a moderator have already spoken to you about the inappropriateness ad hominems. Yet you persist, here comparing me to a Pharisee. Since you can't seem to play by the rules of this discussion group, I'm done talking with you.

Moderator Comment
Please just report posts and don't comment on moderator actions.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 308 by Wootah]

Thank you. I will try and remember that.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 307 by marco]

The process response would be that we are building on solid, axioms, as well as imagination and speculation, which are essential in any field of disciplined inquiry, from science to music and back again.

However, I don't think this is the OP to do into a detailed account of "solid axioms." That would be a rather long post on my part.