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 486 by marco]

Oops. Typo's again. Mu post should have read, "No, or course (not "curse") not.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 486 by marco]

NO, of curse not. Nobody is infallible. However, that isn't exactly the issue here. When we read the Bible or any work in "history," we have to use our discretion, fallible as that may be, too. All we can do is try and do the best we can.

How do we know what is true in the Bible? As I said before, it all depends on what extra-biblical sources you bring into the picture. If you are reading the biblical geophysics and judge it wrong, that is because you looked to modern science. It all just depends on the particular passage and what extra-biblical sources you look to.

Can you give an example or two of a biblical passage that you KNOW to be true and the extra-biblical sources which support that claim?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 491 by hoghead1]

And another one. "Mu" should read "my.' Guess it's my day for typo's.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 492 by Joe1950]

Well, offhand, one that comes to mind is the biblical claim that God created the universe. I hold that is true, based on the cosmological argument (extra-biblical source). Another is Malachi 3:5-7. At first glance , it seems contradictory, claiming God is immutable ("I, the Lord, change not"), then that God does change ("Return to me, that I might return to you"). I hold it is a valid claim about God and I do so based on my process metaphysic. Accordingly, God is a synthesis of both consistency and change. From my process perspective, I hold the passage is valid because it is calming that God enjoys a fixity of purpose, and in that fixity dos not vary. But rather than denying change in God, such 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 change accordingly. In process, God is not deflected form a commitment to seek the greatest beauty in all situations; but to promote the greatest beauty, God must be informed by the feelings of others and adapt to those.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 492 by Joe1950]

And hey, guys, I hate to fuss, but the OP is on whether or not God changes, which is what I want to discuss. We've lapsed way off the OP and are getting into issues on the authority of Scripture. That is a most important issue, but not the subject of the OP here. I think we should al get back to discussion whether God changes. As far as I am concerned, Scripture does present many passages in which God is said to be immutable. But those aren't the whole story. There are many passages in which God is said to change. I think this contradiction cam be resolved if we think of God as a synthesis of both consistency and change. Whether God is said to be mutable or immutable depends on what aspects of God you are speaking of. That's my position, in a nutshell. How about you others ?

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 492 by Joe1950]

And hey, guys, I hate to fuss, but the OP is on whether or not God changes, which is what I want to discuss. We've lapsed way off the OP and are getting into issues on the authority of Scripture. That is a most important issue, but not the subject of the OP here. I think we should al get back to discussion whether God changes. As far as I am concerned, Scripture does present many passages in which God is said to be immutable. But those aren't the whole story. There are many passages in which God is said to change. I think this contradiction cam be resolved if we think of God as a synthesis of both consistency and change. Whether God is said to be mutable or immutable depends on what aspects of God you are speaking of. That's my position, in a nutshell. How about you others ?

Seems to me god is always changing. To fit the particular time and place of those who believe. God seems to have very human characteristics. So, in that sense, the god of the Bible is no different than the gods of the Greeks or Romans or Babylonians r Egyptians. The main difference is that the Jewish god demands to be the ONLY god worshiped. A jealous god. Not a very confident god. Why does there have to be just one god?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 496 by Joe1950]

Well, of course, I agree with you that God is continually changing, adapting to new and unforeseen circumstances. And I agree there are definite parallels between the biblical God and those found in other ancient religions. One God, many paths. That is my belief.

I think one has to be careful about monotheism and polytheism. Often, the two go together. A particular religion may at times be polytheistic, at others monotheistic. Many ancient religions seemed to wildly switch back and forth. Aristotle, for example, spoke of the unmoved Mover, then said there were 44 or 55. Epictetus spoke both of God and of the gods. To a certain extent, Christianity does that in its Trinitarian formulations.

The idea is that one God is superior to many, simply because too many chefs would spoil the soup, ha rmony and order are not assured. in many polytheistic religions, there is great battle and tension between the gods, for example.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 494 by hoghead1]



[center]The fact that you have yourself an argument does NOT imply that it's any good[/center]

Well, offhand, one that comes to mind is the biblical claim that God created the universe. I hold that is true, based on the cosmological argument (extra-biblical source).

Then you have a terrible reason to think that God created the universe. The cosmological argument for the existence of God, at least in the formations that I have looked at are impossibly circular.

Some people ASSUME that there must be a first cause.

Some people assume that a first cause has to be the particular god they happen to believe in..

I say that they assume a LITTLE too much.
And then they base their conclusion on the assumption that the conclusion is true.

BLEH.....

One of the worst circular arguments ever.
Invalid, completely unsound.

And utterly USELESS.

But if you must insist, go for it.
We don't get a LOT of actual defense of the faith in here.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 496 by Joe1950]

Well, of course, I agree with you that God is continually changing, adapting to new and unforeseen circumstances. And I agree there are definite parallels between the biblical God and those found in other ancient religions. One God, many paths. That is my belief.

I think one has to be careful about monotheism and polytheism. Often, the two go together. A particular religion may at times be polytheistic, at others monotheistic. Many ancient religions seemed to wildly switch back and forth. Aristotle, for example, spoke of the unmoved Mover, then said there were 44 or 55. Epictetus spoke both of God and of the gods. To a certain extent, Christianity does that in its Trinitarian formulations.

The idea is that one God is superior to many, simply because too many chefs would spoil the soup, ha rmony and order are not assured. in many polytheistic religions, there is great battle and tension between the gods, for example.

to add to your point about polytheism. Hinduism recognizes one true god but then also recognizes thousands of "manifestations" of god. The Catholic church has more saints (mini-gods) than you can shake a stick at. To my way of thinking that is bordering on polytheism.

[William]

[Replying to post 497 by hoghead1]

This does have a logical consistency.

However, as I understand it, the Primary Creator or First Source Consciousness does not understand itself to being superior to all others.
The notions of superior/inferior have been invented further down the undivided chain of conscious process, and exists because at that level, certain information is unavailable as evidence and thus assumption begins to muddy the waters providing opportunity for speculation and assertion, debate, war etc.

Our universe acts as a barrier to conscious access to all information, and depending on what level the particles of consciousness are directly involved with determines to what degree those particles have access to the knowledge which is available, and also precursors how those particles are most likely to react to their situation.

Where you and I part company in relation to all things related with Pantheist type understanding, is that I regard the earth as a form for a living self conscious entity which I regard as the local GOD, and the reason for this is that I recognize the process involved in consciousness fragmented and compartmentalizing (which I am referring to as 'particles of consciousness') and in that, obviously, some particles are far larger than others but all particles are of the same source and are thus inextricably related, and therefore the idea of superior/inferior are intellectual attempts at enforcing the false idea of separation from a position of ignorance. Which is precisely what organised religions have done, even in relation to their particular takes on monism. The GOD is held to be a separate aspect of consciousness which requires the act of worship, adoration etc and has some pretty diabolical plans for those who do not comply.

To a degree I understand the need for respect for any consciousness which is vaster than our own and which naturally will know more than we individually do and to which we can humbly abide with, but not to the point where it takes the place of First Source or requires my focus solely on it as representative of the true nature of First Source Consciousness while demanding it is the whole rather than the fragment of something far vaster.

This is the impression I get in relation to the Abrahamic ideas of GOD preached, as is evident through many of the different branches of its representative organisations... although I appreciate that 'once upon a time' the Earth Entity may well have thought of Itself as the only consciousness in existence and worthy of our undivided attentions, and saw such as a necessity for the smooth interactions of the human beings together, but somehow I think it is more a case of those human beings making it so by the ignorant demands of their perceptions in separation and the earth Entity having no real recourse but to oblige for the time being, and occasionally make world changing ripples where opportunity lent itself to do so.

Even within the planet entity consciousness it appears that there has been separation and internalized conflict which is being expressed outwards through the particles of consciousness within the biological forms - primarily the human beings - but for me at least, there exist enough clues to have me understand that the earth entity is not conflicted about itself, but the particles of consciousness within those biological forms are conflicted about one another, which gives the impression that 'the gods are in conflict with each other' is as a universal principle, when in reality it is just the humans who have that problem and are presently having to deal with that, locally.

Throughout this process the mind of GOD is consistently changing in relation to those aspects of itself which are less informed and reacting in ignorance, as it is all interconnected. However, the mind of GOD (as First Source Consciousness) is far vaster in volume than the infinitesimal part which is in conflict with itself and for that, there is no particular need for the whole of FSC to change.

From our position within it, locally speaking, there is conflict and thus the need for change and thus - yes - change of mind is a big part of that process. However, for any real significant changes to take place we will have to do away with all types of elitist attitudes which promote separation, superior/inferior conceptualizing, and align with concepts of oneness and wholeness.

And as far as I can tell, religion is no the only human constructed medium which demands superior/inferior conceptualizing and it is a waste of time focusing sole attention on religion being the problem and believing that once that is sorted out, humans will be any better off at all. Pots calling kettles black don't see the wood for the trees.