Does God repent?(Christians)

[Jenyar]

To those who want to believe their prophets, who say "[religion] lessens the importance given to life, since it gives the promise of an afterlife," or "Some people simply are good people, and would be with or without religion. Same with some bad people. But believing in the bible tends to lead to most people having a corrupted sense of ethics," and to those who believe Christ was not a deluded liar.

PS. My PM doesn't seem to be working at the moment!

 

[Raithere]

I have no problem believing that they are significant and find it strange that you have such a problem seeing their truth beyond what you call the "literal".

I do find truths therein, just not in the way that you do. You want the story to be true and are going to great lengths to make that feasible, to rectify any apparent contradictions or problematic passages. I find it more honest to perceive the Bible as a work of man, with all his inherent shortcomings. This way I don’t have to pound on its interpretations and metaphors to make them fit my perception of God. The flaws have a human source and are therefore easily explained.

However, that's all God gave you and me.

How sad. God gave you the entire Universe, a history, a world full of other people, and a brain. Everything you see is an expression of God. Do you really think it can all be condensed into a single book?

He didn't show us lies, neither did Jesus or the apostles. Yet that's all you see.

No, what I see is an expression of mankind’s spiritual quest. Rather than an absolute or divine truth I see a human truth. It is the assertion that these truths are absolute and universal that I find to be the perversion.

As I see it, you have two different problems with God "repenting": 1) Numbers 23:19, which I explained; 2) The problem with God repenting as a human would, which Numbers 23:19 refutes.

And as I see it the problem is still yours. 786 gave his definition of ‘repent’ for us to frame the initial question.

So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, ["Nod" means "wandering" (see verses 12 and 14).] east of Eden.

And ‘Hell’ means the Valley of Hinnom, a garbage dump outside Jerusalem which is where as a non-believer I guess I’m going when I die.

according to the Legends of the Jews

Are you really going there to try and validate this? Are we then going to discuss the 7 Earths and Lilith? How about Asherah, Yahweh’s wife?

Although, the text (verse 17) only tells us that Cain "was then building a city", not that he ever finished. It doesn't say "Cain built a city", as with Nimrod in Gen. 10:11 "he built Nineveh". But that's just "technically"...

Yes, I found that translation as well in Young’s. It still makes no sense one cannot even begin to build a city until one stops wandering.

God takes our actions, prayers and repentances into account. Does that make Him into a liar?

I guess it depends upon your conception of God. If God is fallible and ignorant of some matters then no, I would expect his opinion to change as he gains new insight. If God is perfect and omniscient then I expect him to remain constant and consider these changes of opinion to be lies.

Even "technically"? His words remain valid

No. In the day means in the day not several hundred years later. Technically his words are false. If I told you that the day you eat this poison apple you will die and you eat it but don’t die until you’re 90 would you say I was right? Would you say my words are valid?

You're aware that this wasn't all God was promising David. God said your house and your throne shall be established forever. I'm sure David didn't expect to live forever on earth, and neither did Solomon. What was his throne worth if their wasn't someone on it?

Quite. So where is David’s throne and why doesn’t his house still rule? Now I already know your answer so my next question is; at what point was David’s throne translated from an Earthly kingdom to a heavenly one? And would we expect that David understood this implicitly or did David think God would establish his house an Earthly kingdom? At the very least we can accuse God of being misleading.

I just find these explanations to be terribly convenient. It’s like Return of the Jedi, (paraphrasing) “Oh! I didn’t mean that Darth Vader literally killed your father, I meant that figuratively. And I didn’t realize we were going to film a sequel at the time and we’d need the plot line.”

~Raithere

 

[Jenyar]

I do find truths therein, just not in the way that you do. You want the story to be true and are going to great lengths to make that feasible, to rectify any apparent contradictions or problematic passages. I find it more honest to perceive the Bible as a work of man, with all his inherent shortcomings. This way I don’t have to pound on its interpretations and metaphors to make them fit my perception of God. The flaws have a human source and are therefore easily explained.

But you have no perception of God, not even seeing the Bible as a work of man. Is that by any fault of the Bible?

How sad. God gave you the entire Universe, a history, a world full of other people, and a brain. Everything you see is an expression of God. Do you really think it can all be condensed into a single book?

Not at all, I just think that the information had to be distilled, since "everything" isn't enough - people need to hear the truth one message at a time.

 

[Jenyar]

No, what I see is an expression of mankind’s spiritual quest. Rather than an absolute or divine truth I see a human truth. It is the assertion that these truths are absolute and universal that I find to be the perversion.

So they're just passing truths - only true as far as you can stretch them? I think you're reading the words but not understanding their message. Or at least, not believing their message.

And as I see it the problem is still yours. 786 gave his definition of ‘repent’ for us to frame the initial question.

Oh, right. So we're discussing whether 786's god can repent or not. I must have missed that detail...

And ‘Hell’ means the Valley of Hinnom, a garbage dump outside Jerusalem which is where as a non-believer I guess I’m going when I die.

It was an appropriate example at the time. Go listen to the child sacrifices and the constantly burning garbage, and you'll have some idea what Jesus thought of hell.

 

[Jenyar]

Are you really going there to try and validate this? Are we then going to discuss the 7 Earths and Lilith? How about Asherah, Yahweh’s wife?

That building a city, whether completed or not, was outside God's will - or his punishment, in this case? Yes, of course. As long as you have a problem with it, I don't mind discussing it. Do we revoke the description 'nomad' when a Tuareg tries to settle down; or 'gypsy', when they cease their travelling ways? What God decreed for Cain was a lifetime of exile, what he did during that exile makes him no less an exile. But maybe, if he didn't rebel against the punishment, he would have found a place of rest at the end of his life.

I guess it depends upon your conception of God. If God is fallible and ignorant of some matters then no, I would expect his opinion to change as he gains new insight. If God is perfect and omniscient then I expect him to remain constant and consider these changes of opinion to be lies.

With utter disregard of the people inbetween Adam and Christ? Why should God not enter into their hell and pull them from the fire?

Knowledge does not make the deed done.

 

[Jenyar]

No. In the day means in the day not several hundred years later. Technically his words are false. If I told you that the day you eat this poison apple you will die and you eat it but don’t die until you’re 90 would you say I was right? Would you say my words are valid?

Yes, if you were speaking in an English idiom. Why do you still presume God spoke English? Maybe the fact that I only learned English in school makes me more sensitive to this kind of fallacy.

For one thing, why do you simply assume God, of all speakers, meant physical death? But even if we assume He did - the Hebrew idiom bayowm ("in the day") can mean the certainty of death, not the immediacy of it. An example:

1 Kings 2
37 The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head."
...
41 When Solomon was told that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and had returned, the king summoned Shimei...​

From Jerusalem to Gath is about a 50-60 mile round trip. A donkey’s average journey was only about 20 miles a day (Cansdale, G.S. 1996, "Animals of the Bible," p. 38). But in verse 42 Solomon still sees it fit to remind Shimei that his warning was "on the day you leave to go anywhere else, you can be sure you will die". If Solomon's - a man's - bayowm can be three days, then God's bayowm can be a thousand.

 

[Jenyar]

Quite. So where is David’s throne and why doesn’t his house still rule? Now I already know your answer so my next question is; at what point was David’s throne translated from an Earthly kingdom to a heavenly one?

The throne never really belonged to David: 1 Chron.29:23 (parallel to 1 Kings 2:12) "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him." David understood it (Acts 2:25-36).

Jesus was an earthly decendent of David, and therefore fit for the throne. Although the monarchy of David practically ended during the exile in Babylon (Ezekiel 21:25-27), after which a theological state emerged (the second Temple period), David's reign doesn't have to visible to exist, according to the Talmud. See What is the origin of the phrase “David king of Israel lives and endures!”?.

 

[Jenyar]

Jesus, the messiah (anointed by God himself) was heir to David's earthly kingdom, but with his resurrection transcended it also into the spiritual realm, "rebuilding the third temple" in three days, a spiritual kingdom - in other words: one that will last forever (Acts 2:25-36 and from a Jewish perspective: Why only after the Messiah comes can a third Temple be built?).

Jeremiah 30:9
Instead, they will serve the LORD their God
and David their king,
whom I will raise up for them.​

This is Episode Three, not a reinterpretation of Episode 1!