What if God's views change...

[Crimson Raccoon]

Zahwomen

SUPER HAIR SPLIT!
"There is a difference between rules and laws"

Excuse me. That is not at all what I said. And apparently you didn't bother to read my entire post, because it explains in detail what I meant by it. If you did read it, you didn't understand it, and please ask me what you misunderstood so I can try to explain it more clearly. But don't misquote someone just to try to make them look stupid.

I did not say there is a difference between rules and laws. I said that there are different kinds of rules and laws, and that the Bible makes a distinction between Moral law and Civil law. That's what I said; there is no splitting of hairs. Are you telling me the Bible does nothing to separate and elevate the 10 Commandments above the other laws of the Old Testament? Anyway, please go back and read my entire post (either again, or for the first time), and if you disagree with something I said, by all means state your take on it.

Also, Keely doesn't mean the Epic of Gilgamesh. She's correct about the story of Noah and the Flood being an example of God's "changing views." This passage from Genesis 6 describes why God sent the flood:

Quote:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. ~ Genesis 6:5-8, ESV

It's just an example of God expressing sorrow or regret. In this case, he actually regrets creating humans, because they had degenerated so much morally and were causing so much evil in the world. So he decided to basically start over again, with Noah and his family.

But it also shows some of God's changeless qualities, in that he always hates sin, he always punishes sin, and he always has mercy and love for those who are faithful to him. These, and all other characteristics of God, are changeless. God himself is changeless, as shown in all the Scripture verses Silver_Rose_of_Life kindly quoted. But we see from other verses such as these about the Flood, that he can still change his mind about things, and has changes in emotion. In short, he has a personality; that's why we are able to have a personal relationship with him. It's nice. =)  

[Xahmen]

Crimson Raccoon

Zahwomen

SUPER HAIR SPLIT!
"There is a difference between rules and laws"

Excuse me. That is not at all what I said. And apparently you didn't bother to read my entire post, because it explains in detail what I meant by it. If you did read it, you didn't understand it, and please ask me what you misunderstood so I can try to explain it more clearly. But don't misquote someone just to try to make them look stupid.

I did not say there is a difference between rules and laws. I said that there are different kinds of rules and laws, and that the Bible makes a distinction between Moral law and Civil law. That's what I said; there is no splitting of hairs. Are you telling me the Bible does nothing to separate and elevate the 10 Commandments above the other laws of the Old Testament? Anyway, please go back and read my entire post (either again, or for the first time), and if you disagree with something I said, by all means state your take on it.

Also, Keely doesn't mean the Epic of Gilgamesh. She's correct about the story of Noah and the Flood being an example of God's "changing views." This passage from Genesis 6 describes why God sent the flood:

Quote:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. ~ Genesis 6:5-8, ESV

It's just an example of God expressing sorrow or regret. In this case, he actually regrets creating humans, because they had degenerated so much morally and were causing so much evil in the world. So he decided to basically start over again, with Noah and his family.

But it also shows some of God's changeless qualities, in that he always hates sin, he always punishes sin, and he always has mercy and love for those who are faithful to him. These, and all other characteristics of God, are changeless. God himself is changeless, as shown in all the Scripture verses Silver_Rose_of_Life kindly quoted. But we see from other verses such as these about the Flood, that he can still change his mind about things, and has changes in emotion. In short, he has a personality; that's why we are able to have a personal relationship with him. It's nice. =)

Yeah I know.
I just felt like riling you up.
Sorry about that.

As far as the Gilgamesh thing goes, I was just tossing that out there.  

[divineseraph]

Crimson Raccoon

Scazarith, I appreciate everything you're saying. But I'm confused about one thing: In what way is the 10 Commandments the "New Law"? They were actually given to Moses before Leviticus was written, or any other books of the Bible. Moses is the author of the first five books of the bible, where all the laws come from, and the 10 Commandments were given at the beginning of his career as leader, shortly after the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea. So actually, the 10 Commandments are the first of the laws given. The rest followed very soon after, but these were first because they were the most important: the moral law.

divineseraph

If God does not change, then his rules do not change. If everything in an abrahamnic holy text is God's rule, then it is against God's non-changing rule to eat mollusks and crustaceans. Also pork. Also to not stone to death homosexuals and women who practice sorcery.

Point being, there's one of two things going on- Either God can change his mind, or scripture can be wrong. Since God is infinite, the man-made scripture must be at fault.

There are different kinds of rules and laws. The Bible makes a distinction between Moral law and Civil law. Moral Law was universal and applied to all mankind; things such as not to murder, etc. It is the law by which God judges mankind. These are the laws that are summarized in the 10 Commandments.

The Civil Law was the laws of the state; so rather than being universal like the Moral Law, they only applied to the nation of Israel. The rules in the book of Leviticus were only ever meant to apply to the Israelites, and they included all the rules regarding dietary restrictions, and cleanness. (As an aside I'd like to point out that these rules, perfectly followed, would have put Israel far above the curve for hygiene and lack of diseases, out of the nations that existed at that time).

The New Testament makes it clear that Christians are not under the civil laws of Israel. Rather, Christians are instructed to follow the laws of whatever country we are living in, so long as they do not force us to go against the law of God.

So it's not exactly that the laws have changed at all. It's just that Christianity has a very different context than Israel did in the Old Testament.


Does God change? Scripture makes it clear that God himself does not change. But I disagree that it says he never changes his mind about things. There are some things he will never change his mind about, such as morality, because morality is a characteristic of God himself and as such it will not change. But actually I think the Bible makes it clear that God can change his mind about other things. That's part of what the point of prayer is.

If God never changes his mind about anything, there is really no point to asking him for anything in prayer, because he's already decided it all and won't listen to you. But the Bible, of course, tells things differently. It is filled with examples of God pronouncing some kind of judgment on someone most assuredly, but when they turned away from their sin to live faithfully, he relented and didn't punish them. This involves a change on God's part. But it is not a change of his substance or character. Actually, it is consistent with his character, because he is merciful and willing to listen to the prayers of his people - always has, and always will.

Why would God call something like Shrimp an abomination, and be so serious about it, if he knew that it was really no big deal?

And it is not a moral law that calls Jesus into power, Jesus is not anywhere in the commandments. I believe in universal law of God, but there is nothing that specifies a specific prophet, and there should not be anything of the sort either.  

[marzipancakes]

Wait wait wait. I can't even keep up with what everyone is saying, so I'm not even going to bother to try, but I do have to say, to whoever said it a while ago:

Who says that when God makes a rule, he can't change it? It's not really lying. It's just...rethinking?
For example, again: Back in the day, a slavemaster could have said "yes, black people are heathens and DESERVE THIS TREATMENT."
But then, years later, he could regret what he did and have a totally new view on it.
BUT, that doesn't mean that he lied in what he said perviously. It just means he changed his mind.

NOW, before anyone starts whining and moaning that God and a slavemaster are NOT the same thing; that is NOT what I meant at all, by any means. If you're taking it that way, please just reread it and try to look at it differently to get what I'm trying to say.  

[Xahmen]

sheheartsthings

Wait wait wait. I can't even keep up with what everyone is saying, so I'm not even going to bother to try, but I do have to say, to whoever said it a while ago:

Who says that when God makes a rule, he can't change it? It's not really lying. It's just...rethinking?
For example, again: Back in the day, a slavemaster could have said "yes, black people are heathens and DESERVE THIS TREATMENT."
But then, years later, he could regret what he did and have a totally new view on it.
BUT, that doesn't mean that he lied in what he said perviously. It just means he changed his mind.

NOW, before anyone starts whining and moaning that God and a slavemaster are NOT the same thing; that is NOT what I meant at all, by any means. If you're taking it that way, please just reread it and try to look at it differently to get what I'm trying to say.

You're putting god into the same category as a fallible being.  

[divineseraph]

I think it's simply much simpler than we like to make it. God is simple in nature- He is ultimite simplicity. In the beginning, there was one thing- God. From that, all other things came and corrupted and changed and, with it, gained complexity. This is not to say that God is stupid or insentient- He is pure thought and mind. There is no money in God, there is no place of residence, no strife, no measurement of space, no possession.

In Malkhut, we are subjected to all of this physical stuff, and it is very intricate and complex and corrupted. As such, we like to make things intricate and complex and corrupted to match up.

The point here is that God really wants us to be good people- Goodness is universal, it involves the basic of basics- Don't harm anyone. That's about it.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

As a warning, this is a long post and a little off-topic, so I wouldn't bother reading it unless you are interested in the answer to divineseraph's concerns quoted here:

divineseraph

Why would God call something like Shrimp an abomination, and be so serious about it, if he knew that it was really no big deal?

and earlier ...

divineseraph

But he had previously said that they were an abomination! How can He suddenly change his mind? Or are these people pulling the strings and putting falsities into scripture, be they the jews who made up the banned foods or the christians who repealed them?

Sorry I didn't address this earlier. It's a legitimate concern, but it's based on a common misconception about these dietary laws.

There is, to my knowledge, no evidence from the Bible that God ever himself considered any of these animals to be an "abomination," and so there is no evidence that God changed his mind about them. To support my argument, which I'm sure the good fellow divineseraph is currently gawking at with disbelief, I provide the chapter of Leviticus in which all these dietary restrictions are written.

(just so you know, the translation I happen to be using has the word "detestable" instead of "abominable." It means the same thing of course, and it comes from the same Hebrew word; this is just a more modernly worded translation.)

Quote:

And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

“And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

“All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you."

~ Leviticus 11:1-23, ESV

The above is the list of dietary commands given by God to the Israelites regarding animals. The key to the point I'm making is in the use of the word "detestable" or "abominable." Does the Bible really say these things are detestable to God?

"Anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales... is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable... And these you shall detest among the birds... All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you..."

God is commanding that these particular animals be regarded as detestable by the Israelites. That does not mean the animals are detestable in and of themselves, nor does it mean they are regarded as detestable by God himself. These verses about animals are in stark contrast to the use of the term elsewhere in the Bible, when it refers to the breaking of moral commandments:

"Cursed be the man who makes a carved or cast metal image, an abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret." -Deuteronomy 27:15, referring to the making of an idol for worship.

"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him." -Proverbs 15:8

"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." -Proverbs 6:16-19


By this distinction, we know that shrimp was never abominable to God like the sins in the last three quotes were. So, when he made all foods available the be eaten in the New Testament, he was not changing his mind about what are abominations.

He had commanded the Israelites in the Old Testament to themselves regard these animals as abominable for two reasons. One was for the purposes of health, as several other posters here have described. The other reason had a symbolic significance. At the end of Leviticus 11, where these dietary restrictions are listed, he concludes with the reason why he's commanded them:

"I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy... This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten." -Leviticus 11:41-47, ellipses added.

The purpose is about holiness, that they should be holy because their God is holy. That there should be a distinction made, not only between the clean animals and the unclean animals, but between Israel as the people of God, and the other nations. These external, customary behaviors that would have made Israel so different from other nations, and healthier, were supposed to symbolize that internally and spiritually, they were supposed to be different and healthier; for that is what holiness is.

The Pharisees who gave Christ such a headache in the Gospels were all hung up on the outward significance of these laws. But they completely missed the point God had given them at the end of the commands: to be holy. This is why Christ said to them, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness." He uses this simile to describe how they follow the outward laws only, but for the most important laws, the morals, they are dead inside. The outward requirements were just a symbol, and it was the spiritual health that was important.

In the New Testament, when God called all these other animals "clean" in Peter's vision, the symbolism of the distinction between Israel and the other nations was put to an end. That's why Christianity is a universal religion, and the disciples immediately went all over the known world to spread the gospel.

For reference, the place you can read about that vision were animals like shrimp were made "clean," is Acts chapter 10. I'll quote the most important section of it here:

Quote:

The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
~ Acts 10:9-16, ESV

 

[No place like 127 0 0 1]

he's not like people, he doesnt decide to "change" his mind, he planned it perfectly and already knew the result.
its done for a reason we sometimes cant understand i suppose...  

[divineseraph]

The Lord spoke to them and told them what to eat and what not to eat. He also told them not to kill. I don't see why one rule should be more infinite than the other, as killing should be detestable to one as well.

So, again, either the people of Israel liked to put their words in God's mouth, or God can change his mind. I think it's the first one.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

divineseraph

The Lord spoke to them and told them what to eat and what not to eat. He also told them not to kill. I don't see why one rule should be more infinite than the other, as killing should be detestable to one as well.

As I described, and as the Bible teaches, the laws regarding diet were given for a specific purpose. When that purpose was fulfilled, the laws were lifted. Saying that this means God must have changed his mind is like saying whenever somebody dies, God must have changed his mind that he ever wanted them to have lived. No, they had a purpose, and it was fulfilled, that's all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "one rule being more infinite than the other." I don't know what it means for a law to be infinite. I said that there is a difference in the way God viewed the dietary laws and the moral laws, by showing that Scripture makes it clear that only sin is an abomination to God, not any animals. You said, "killing should be detestable to one as well," and yes that's very true, which is why God specifically said it is abominable to him in the verse from Proverbs I quoted above, about "hands that shed innocent blood."

If by infinite you mean eternal, well, none of the laws are eternal. The 10 Commandments have a specific purpose too, and when that purpose is fulfilled, they too will be lifted. Christ himself specifically said that the law will pass away when he comes again. Because then, there won't be any need for it. Just as there isn't any need for dietary restrictions now! ;P It can't mean God is going to change his mind about the 10 Commandments, because he is telling us ahead of time that they will pass away.

divineseraph

So, again, either the people of Israel liked to put their words in God's mouth, or God can change his mind. I think it's the first one.

When someone makes a topic asking a question about "God" in a Christian guild, I venture the assumption that they are asking about the Christian God in particular. And because the Christian God insists that we learn about him from the Bible, I make my arguments based on the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God.

If you're speaking from the point of view that the Bible can't be trusted, I suppose there's nothing anyone can say to convince you of much about God, so there's not much point in discussing topics like this. If I could show you a verse that came right out and said, "God did not change his mind about any laws, but they had a purpose which were fulfilled, and by the way, this was not written by anything other than the finger of God himself," well, if such a verse existed, apparently it still would not be able to convince you. But a sad and weak God it is who gives his Word to man and is unable to make sure it is kept up accurately.

Christ himself verified the Old Testament scriptures as being the Word of God. But then again, I suppose someone could have just lied and invented everything he said about that. Still, what a pathetic God we would be trying to learn about, if he sent the Savior into the world, and was unable to secure any accurate way of making his teachings known. The whole ordeal of Christ would have been rather pointless.  

[divineseraph]

Crimson Raccoon

divineseraph

The Lord spoke to them and told them what to eat and what not to eat. He also told them not to kill. I don't see why one rule should be more infinite than the other, as killing should be detestable to one as well.

As I described, and as the Bible teaches, the laws regarding diet were given for a specific purpose. When that purpose was fulfilled, the laws were lifted. Saying that this means God must have changed his mind is like saying whenever somebody dies, God must have changed his mind that he ever wanted them to have lived. No, they had a purpose, and it was fulfilled, that's all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "one rule being more infinite than the other." I don't know what it means for a law to be infinite. I said that there is a difference in the way God viewed the dietary laws and the moral laws, by showing that Scripture makes it clear that only sin is an abomination to God, not any animals. You said, "killing should be detestable to one as well," and yes that's very true, which is why God specifically said it is abominable to him in the verse from Proverbs I quoted above, about "hands that shed innocent blood."

If by infinite you mean eternal, well, none of the laws are eternal. The 10 Commandments have a specific purpose too, and when that purpose is fulfilled, they too will be lifted. Christ himself specifically said that the law will pass away when he comes again. Because then, there won't be any need for it. Just as there isn't any need for dietary restrictions now! ;P It can't mean God is going to change his mind about the 10 Commandments, because he is telling us ahead of time that they will pass away.

divineseraph

So, again, either the people of Israel liked to put their words in God's mouth, or God can change his mind. I think it's the first one.

When someone makes a topic asking a question about "God" in a Christian guild, I venture the assumption that they are asking about the Christian God in particular. And because the Christian God insists that we learn about him from the Bible, I make my arguments based on the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God.

If you're speaking from the point of view that the Bible can't be trusted, I suppose there's nothing anyone can say to convince you of much about God, so there's not much point in discussing topics like this. If I could show you a verse that came right out and said, "God did not change his mind about any laws, but they had a purpose which were fulfilled, and by the way, this was not written by anything other than the finger of God himself," well, if such a verse existed, apparently it still would not be able to convince you. But a sad and weak God it is who gives his Word to man and is unable to make sure it is kept up accurately.

Christ himself verified the Old Testament scriptures as being the Word of God. But then again, I suppose someone could have just lied and invented everything he said about that. Still, what a pathetic God we would be trying to learn about, if he sent the Savior into the world, and was unable to secure any accurate way of making his teachings known. The whole ordeal of Christ would have been rather pointless.

God did not tell you that the bible is the way to learn about God. The guys writing the book about the guy who talked to God did.

It's actually a logical fallacy of begging the question here- The bible is the truth about God because in the bible it says that the bible is the truth about God. You're justifying something with itself, and that is just illogical.

And I think because of the way we butchered the teachings of Christ, yes, it was kind of pointless. That's probably why God hasn't spoken to us in about 1500 years.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

divineseraph

God did not tell you that the bible is the way to learn about God. The guys writing the book about the guy who talked to God did.

It's actually a logical fallacy of begging the question here- The bible is the truth about God because in the bible it says that the bible is the truth about God. You're justifying something with itself, and that is just illogical.

And I think because of the way we butchered the teachings of Christ, yes, it was kind of pointless. That's probably why God hasn't spoken to us in about 1500 years.

This has gotten too off-topic, so I've made a new thread and put my response to divineseraph there. Here's the link: Is the Bible accurately Gods Word?