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?

[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.

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?

Moderator Comment
Hi Claire,

Please stop making your posts personal.

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.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 310 by hoghead1]

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.

Solid axioms?
Like what?

[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.

Yes, imagination and speculation are the precursors of theory and verification. We can make imaginative guesses in any field but we cannot then speak dogmatically as if our speculation had the power of proof behind it.

I can't imagine what axioms could be used on which to build notions about God. Despite your grouping all branches of learning together, theology cannot have the credibility of, say physics or mathematics. It can be compared to a study of mythology where myths can give us some insight into human behaviour and ideas. A study of Orpheus in the underworld might have a bearing on psychology.

In considering whether God changes his mind, we are dealing with the persona portrayed in the Bible and it is a simple matter to see whether the character alters his views. We could do the same with Zeus or Macbeth, our conclusions having the same validity. The profundity of our speculation doesn't confer truth on the tales.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 313 by marco]

There are process arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, argument form meaningfulness of life, argument form creativity, etc. I haven't brought any of these up yet here, though I'm pretty sure I discussed some of this material with you earlier, as that seemed off the current OP, which is simply asking whether or not God changes.

When it comes down to the question of credibility, I think there is more than one form or method of credibility. I don't think scientific credibility is the only kind, important as it may be. As I have said in many previous posts., I don't think the question of God is a scientific question, to start with. I think it is more like a question in math or logic. But that is another story. I want to stick with the OP and address whether God changes.

I think it is important to bear in mind there are two models of God: there is the religious model and there is the philosopher's model. In the religious model of God, it is generally assumed that humans and God or the gods can interact, each side having a major impact on the other. The philosopher's model, which came largely from the influx of Hellenic philosophy, denies any such interaction. God is viewed as wholly static, immutable, having no "real relationship" to us or creation, as St. Thomas Aquinas stressed. The problem, is that Christianity incorporated both models, thereby leading to a number of highly conflicting, downright contradictory assumptions about God. Consequently, many became atheists. Really, the problem they had wasn't the idea of God per se; it as the fact that Christianity God was presented such a highly illogical, contradictory description of God.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 314 by hoghead1]



[center]The hurry up and fail tactic.[/center]

There are process arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, argument form meaningfulness of life, argument form creativity, etc.

The fact that someone can list a bunch of arguments is no evidence that any of them have a HOPE of making sense.

Sorry.

That's just a fail right there.

[marco]

There are process arguments for the existence of God ....

And arguments are not axioms. Aquinas came up with arguments that others have scrutinised and found flawed. Aquinas in his "adoro te devote" hymn wrote that : "sight, touch and taste in thee are each deceived; the ear alone most safely is believed," as an argument for transubstantiation. We can argue any proposition into truth if we have the intellectual power tools.

When it comes down to the question of credibility, I think there is more than one form or method of credibility.

I think we are visiting Orwell's Animal Farm here, where all animals are equal but some more equal than others. Credibility is credibility, however you dress it.

I think it is important to bear in mind there are two models of God: there is the religious model and there is the philosopher's model.

Then it is important to note that we are finding fault NOT with God and his changed mind, but with human perceptions of what God might be made of. You can assemble as much theological power as you want and hire the very Everest of erudition but the product is not divine - just a human impression, subject to human error. And the Biblical God does change his mind. The Process God might be so constructed as to be free of the obvious errors religion has given him. He remains a construct; a god built by human fingers. If we conclude this God does not change his mind, or changes with the seconds, then we are making a comment on the latest model. Interesting, but a far cry from truth.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 316 by marco]

We are human beings and so have to think in human terms. Anything we say, one way or the other about God, or any subject, is the product of our human thought and experience. There is no way around that. So your statements are kind of what are called Aunt Fanny statements. They cover everyone's Aunt Fanny, amply to any subject. Therefore, they really aren't relevant to the discussion. And it is also true there aren't any arguments you maybe can't wiggle out of if you try hard enough. That's why there are still flat-earth people around. Science says the world is round, but that is simply because scientific instruments were cleverly engineered by scientists to reinforce their undue prejudice, etc. So what one needs to do is read through all the arguments and then choose which seem most convincing, present them, and see what others say, and if their "objections" can be met. That's the way dialogue works. So if you want to reject process, that is your privilege. What you would then need to do is look over the process arguments and see if you can come up with a solid rebuttal. As yet, you have not done that. Well, of course not since I haven't gone into this material in any detail here, as that would be off the OP, which simply asks if God changes.

And, no, I don't think credibility is just credibility. There are different standards of credibility. Scientific credibility is not the only one. That's why I have said the question of God is not a scientific question. Indeed, science does have definite limitations. For example, it cannot verify the verification principle, that the only meaningful statements are statements that can be backed with direct sensory observations.

What I am saying is that when you solve one set of problems, you face another. Which way you choose depends upon which problems you are willing to accept. All our knowledge bases have flaws. So the question is which flaws do you reject and which are you willing to live with. There is no such thing as absolute truth based on absolute proof. However, that does not mean that certain assumptions have a higher probability of being true than others. So, yes, basing your approach on sound arguments still goes and is a solid way to proceed.

[marco]

We are human beings and so have to think in human terms.

You need go no further than this simple statement, without bothering Aunt Fanny whoever she is. We think of God in human terms and of course that is doomed to failure. When we offer explanations for observed physical phenomena we can hope for success. My quarrel with your approach is you make statements about God as if they were already acceptable truths, since Process Theology has fully scrutinised them.

And, no, I don't think credibility is just credibility. There are different standards of credibility. Scientific credibility is not the only one.

There are different standards of proof, certainly. And I suppose that when we say something is credible the word has different colours depending on the people who are doing the believing. Religious people seem to apply a more elastic meaning to the word as, perhaps, do theologians.

There is no such thing as absolute truth based on absolute proof. However, that does not mean that certain assumptions have a higher probability of being true than others. So, yes, basing your approach on sound arguments still goes and is a solid way to proceed.

In a localised field we can attain truth by proof. Extending our results, of course, has no guarantees. I don't know what you mean by the sentence in red. Of course some assumptions are more likely to be true than others.

Basing one's approach on "solid argument" is fruitful provided the solid argument is about ideas that have some chance of being verified. Notions about God cannot be based on solid argument. They are based on hope and imagination. They may be comforting but they are worthless currency in the domain of truth. Sadly.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 318 by marco]

Due to limited time and space, sometimes I do just share my POV--and that's it, just as others do here. However, if you read my posts, you will find I have presented arguments in support of my position. In your present post, you yourself made some claims without presenting your supporting argument. As I say, that is bound to happen, due to the limitations we all have on time and length of posts. And that's why we have dialogue. Oh, you take such-and-such to be the case? Just why is that?

Regarding your first claim, I'm pretty sure I brought up this issue with you once before, but maybe I didn't. I find all knowing is analogous knowing. To know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. If there is one thing we are most familiar with, it is our human existence. Unless there is some analogy, a genuine likeness, between ourselves and the rest of reality, and this includes God, then we haven't an inkling what's going on. Anthropomorphizing and projection are not the problems, they are the solution.

I think that any responsible scientist will tell you that we are not dealing with absolute truth based on absolute proof. We have only a very limited window into ourselves and the larger universe. Much of what we say is based on speculation. Hence, we are dealing with degrees of probability of something being true, not 100 percent certainty. That doesn't mean we can't make any claims, just that we need to realize we are going on probabilities of something being correct or more correct than some other assumption. Nobody was around with a camcorder to directly observe God crating in six days, and nobody was around either to directly observe and record the Big Bang. Question is, Which set of speculations have the higher probability of being true?

Your claim that there are no solid arguments for God puzzles me. There are quite a number of solid traditional and contemporary arguments for God. Have you read any of those? What about Hartshorne's revision of the ontological argument? What about Anselm's original version? And, if you are an atheist, where is your positive disproof of God? Did you turn over every stone in the universe to find out? My point is that both sides engage in some real degree of speculation, which part and parcel of the quest for knowledge in any field. So the thing to do is for us to share our speculations, dialogue back and forth, test out our positions, examine which one has the highest probability of being true, etc.

[marco]

To know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. If there is one thing we are most familiar with, it is our human existence. Unless there is some analogy, a genuine likeness, between ourselves and the rest of reality, and this includes God, then we haven't an inkling what's going on. Anthropomorphizing and projection are not the problems, they are the solution.

I disagree with these assertions. It is a useful mathematical strategy to reduce complex problems to a series of simple ones and in the end our answers can be verified. It is often utterly wrong to assume the unfamiliar follows the same pattern as the familiar. A simple illustration is that when we add the numbers from 1 to 100 it doesn't matter in which order we take the numbers. If we are summing a series that is infinite we can sometimes get a finite answer; in other instances we get different answers, counter-intuitively, when we change the order of terms. Thus it is naïve to suppose that the familiar translates well into the unknown, especially in relation to God.

As for the statement: " Anthropomorphizing and projection are not the problems, they are the solution" - they are a speculation and the solution, whatever it is, would be contentious.

Your claim that there are no solid arguments for God puzzles me. There are quite a number of solid traditional and contemporary arguments for God.

Yes, they are suggestions, ideas, illustrations. They lack solidity; they are not proofs and never can be. Anselm wanted something to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, rather than just empty belief, and he devised his "proof". One might as well search for a unicorn.

The onus is always on the person who claims the existence of some being or creature to substantiate the claim; it is not for others to prove that unicorns, for instance, don't exist. No one has proved that God exists; the best we can do is clap our heels together three times and whisper: "I DO believe." Rather like Tertullian.