Is God 'allowed' to change his mind?

Paul writes:

quote:

---

Evidence for presumptuous acts done wilfully and deliberatly against law and conscience is everywhere, and is a tuff subject which most try to avoid. However it's rampant in and exclusive to the human species and it needs to be addressed as to why?

---

There are lots of reasons why.They can range from the clinical (the person has a psychological or medical defect that renders him incapable of comprehending or complying with the standards established by society for behaviour) to the personal (the person values the outcome more than the rules that disallow the action and thinks he can get away with it.)But, it would seem to be a shifting of burden to ask of those who aren't invoking god as a ruler of all that is good and bad to explain why good and bad exist. This is because they aren't saying that there is some powerful being that defines what "good" and "evil" are and is capable of guiding creation along those lines.That is, people who place good and bad clearly within the realm of human behaviour don't have to explain why good and bad exist since it is part of human behaviour simply by observation.However, a person who claims that there is a god who controls everything (or, at least can control everything) needs to explain why there is good and bad since it is conceivable that this "all good" being could do away with evil if only he would act.Let's try it this way: Suppose there's a stickup in a city 1,000 miles away. Do you as a person who finds out about it two seconds before it happens have to explain why it's going to happen since you are in no position to do anything about it? What about if you're Superman and capable of getting there in time and, indeed, have nothing stopping you from getting there in time to foil it?By observation, there are good and bad people. If we don't invoke an uber-being as arbiter of all that is good and bad and capable of controlling the humans, then we simply accept that there are good and bad people and while we might try to adjust the ratio, we will accept that we are only human and might not be able to do so.But if we do invoke this uber-being, why are there good and bad people?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Oh, by the way, does your saw really look just like all the other toys you are letting your kids play with?

---

I couldn't pass this one up:"And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." (Genesis 3:6)For the sake of the analogy, yes. Oh, and he should also put another kid in the play room to tell them how cool the saw is and that they'll be just like daddy if they play with it.

Hi Paul, This depends on what type of law and whose conscience you are talking about. For example, what is lawful in the UK may not be lawful in the USA. As for conscience, this depends entirely on your upbringing. If I find a wallet in the street I take it straight to the nearest police station to see if someone has been looking for it, another person would empty the contents into his pocket and throw the wallet away. Apparently God has given us both a conscience, but it is the way we are brought up that influences to what degree that conscience is ‘moral’. Animals can break the law as well, although they are ignorant of the law, and they can pay the consequences. It happens fairly regularly that a dog will assault a child and then that dog is put down. Also, how can we expect animals to have a conscience that resembles ours, they do not have the same level of intelligence as we do. You are comparing two incompatible creatures. Well, apparently God created us, and God is a pretty unintelligent being who is incapable of making a perfect universe and perfect inhabitants. This is why He is blamed, it reminds me of an old saying, ‘it is a poor workman that blames his tools.’ God is a workman who cannot ‘make’ things very well, so instead of taking the blame for being useless, he blames his tools (us) and this removes the fact that He is the one who is hopeless. Neither we nor anyone else can prove that God exists in the first place so we cannot show you any evidence. That the God of the Bible is a bloodthirsty Barbarian can be deduced by the many stories about him recorded in the Bible. Since we have no direct evidence of God we can judge him on the things He was meant to have done. A great deal of God’s acts in the Bible are horrific, and He well justifies the label of Barbarian. Why include a mythological being that there is no need to include in the equation?As one wise man at this site proclaims ‘Occam’s Razor is not for shaving with!’Best Wishes.Brian.

Oh, and I had forgotten this:

quote:

---

However it's rampant in and exclusive to the human species

---

Incorrect. Observation of chimpanzee troops finds that they, too, have an ethical system, even to primitive legal systems. Certain crimes (such as stealing someone's food) have consistent punishments meted out.It was one of the great difficulties many had with Goodall's work observing primates when she described how they would actually wage war with each other. It was thought that "mere animals" couldn't possibly be that sophisticated.Well, turns out they are. The difference between human cognitive processes and the processes of other animals appears to be one of quantity, not quality.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Duh? hmm... So, your opinion is that if it feels good sexually, whether heterosexual or homosexual, any act is ok? That no matter how odd the behavior, if it feels good, it's quite fine to do?What are the parameters for this "because it feels good" logic?.Does this logic then explain why a 27 year old, 8 month pregnant, woman is murdered on Christmas eve by her husband, while he is having a torrid sexual relationship with another woman?. This murderous act must be driven by the bonding and social aspect that you refer to then, correct? Was he tired of the old bond and needed a new one? Was that "because it feels good" aspect absent from their relationship, therefore he needed a new one? I guess this extra bonding, social and sexual activity that "felt so good", became more important than the lives of his wife and unborn child then?Judge: "Why did you murder your wife and unborn child?"Husband: "Well your Honor, this new relationship just became too important to me. This new bonding was very special and the sex was utterly fantastic."Judge: " How could extra marital bonding and especially sexual activity with another woman, justify taking the lives of your wife and unborn child!!?Husband: Your Honor? sheeesh! "Because it feels good! Duh!."Respectfully, Paul.

That's clearly not what we're talking about.You asked "why are some sexual acts committed?" not "Why are some sexual acts morally acceptable?". The answer to the first one is "humans are motivated by pleasure." The answer to the second one is the much more complex area of human morality. Clearly, none of us have advanced this logic. That said, let me challenge you - if two (or more) adults agree to engage in behaviors that you personally may not like, but that bring physical and mental harm to no one, what's the rationale for saying that it's not ok? The commandments of your god don't count, especially because not everyone - not even most - think that your god prohibits certain acts. So the answer is "no, it doesn't". We never said it did.

Paul responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

So, your opinion is that if it feels good sexually, whether heterosexual or homosexual, any act is ok? That no matter how odd the behavior, if it feels good, it's quite fine to do?

---

I can't speak for schrafinator, but let me rephrase your question:Why are any sexual practices considered "odd"?You don't do this for other aspects. For example, you don't call Scandanavians "abomination" for eating lye-soaked whitefish. Pretty odd, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is an offense against god, is it?

quote:

---

What are the parameters for this "because it feels good" logic?.

---

The consent of the people involved.After all, if you're not involved, why should you care? Why are you obsessing about what other people are doing for fun when you have no chance of being affected by it?

quote:

---

Does this logic then explain why a 27 year old, 8 month pregnant, woman is murdered on Christmas eve by her husband, while he is having a torrid sexual relationship with another woman?

---

So Laci Peterson was murdered because gay people are tolerated?Question: Do you think Peterson consented to being murdered?

quote:

---

This murderous act must be driven by the bonding and social aspect that you refer to then, correct?

---

You mean Scott Peterson is gay? When did that come out?What does the existence of gay people have to do with S. Peterson's murder of L. Peterson?

quote:

---

Was he tired of the old bond and needed a new one?

---

You'll have to ask him.But what does this have to do with people being gay?

quote:

---

Was that "because it feels good" aspect absent from their relationship, therefore he needed a new one?

---

You'll have to ask him.But what does this have to do with people being gay?

quote:

---

I guess this extra bonding, social and sexual activity that "felt so good", became more important than the lives of his wife and unborn child then?

---

Do you seriously think they consented to the assault?Think about it for a second, Paul: If I decide to have Cheerios for breakfast as opposed to Grape Nuts, does that really have any effect upon your life? So if two people decide to engage in some non-procreative sexual activity without consulting you, how does that affect your life? By what basis do you think you have any claim to stop them from doing so?How does it break your leg or pick your pocket, to paraphrase Jefferson?Do you have a problem with finding yourself engaging in sexual practices you don't want to be participating in?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I was gonna put a big long response here.Then I realized that no one should even have to respond to a chain of thought that states, "Oh, you think sex feels good! So you approve of murder, then?"------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because it feels good.
Duh.

---

Duh? hmm...

---

Way to answer only the least substantial point offered. I'd like to join this discussion, but not while you're avoiding all the real arguments against your baseless condemnation of a victimless "offense."

Finally. A quality answer without a "God-Bash". Thx Rrhain.Some good points are made. However, although research can be catagorized in the manner you have described, it is at the same time quite clear that all other species behavioral characteristics are seen as survivalistic actions. When a chimp takes another chimps food it has done so because it feels it needs to eat that food to survive, period. When a chimp responds to this other chimps action it's doing so because it feels it's survival is being threatened by the taking of its food. This cannot be catagorized as stealing and delivering punishment such as we do. Stealing within the human species however, is always done out of greed, laziness or for profit.Indeed there are clinical and personal reasons for the multitudes of failures that we humans commit, with the question being why are we the only species to have these characteristics? Why is there such a vast difference between us and all other species in this area? Why is it that I can break into my neighbours house and steal his $10,000 stereo set when I have one of my own at home? Do I need his set? No. Do I need his set to survive? No. What is my motivation to do this then? Why does the human species consistantly conceive things in their minds that go against conscience, and then futher, manifest those things through a blatant action? Why can some of our species seem to control this and yet others cannot? We have all thought things that go against conscience and yet not all commit an action to go along with that thought. Am I to assume that you are saying it's the condition of the mind that dictates our every action? Is the mind the place that we "Know" or "Feel" ? or both? or neither? If I know something is wrong to do, can I go ahead and do it based on how I feel? Where did this ability come from? I "know" it's wrong to steal my neighbours stereo, but, based on how I "feel" allows me to steal it? or even gives me the right to steal it? Why is it that one day I may steal something and the next day not? Why is it that the greater the value of something the greater the likelihood of me stealing it there is? Why would value mean anything to me anyways? I'm simply surviving am I not? What told my mind to place such a value on things and then give liscence to steal them? Is it an emotion that drives this? If so what emotion is it then ? For that matter where did emotions come from, and again, which one drives the stealing or say cold blooded murder action? Why do we have all these emotions and all other species are basically void of them? When a mentally handicapped person commits a crime we blame their mind and their handicap. If an intelligent, physically fit person commits a crime what does that say about the condition of their mind or their personality? What's to blame in this case? The mind or emotions? or neither?.Thought is the process by which we live. Every decision and then action that is made, begins with a thought process. What gaurds the thought process from presumptuous error? The conscience, which is the birthplace of emotions. But what if the conscience fails? You will have errors. How could this unseen conscience have developed that can be more powerful than the mind? And since it is more powerful than the mind how is it then possible to err with it in place? If its intension is to protect us from err, how does it fail us then? Is there something more powerful than the conscience then? Yes. The Free Will: The complete and total right to choose between right and wrong.No other species has or even needs this right. Observation has shown that all their behavioral habits are survivalistic in nature, and they never commit presumptuous acts of wrong. Why do they not have or need this right?It was not part of their design.Repectfully, Paul

This isn't entirely accurate. It would be more accurate to say that animals commit acts that are survivalistic in nature from their perspective right at that moment.For instance, if a rabbit eats the carrot in my trap, was that ultimately survivalistic? Not from my perspective, because now I've killed and eaten that rabbit. From the rabbit's perspective, eating the carrot was a great idea - the rabbit was just mistaken.Who's to say that a lot of human actions aren't simply survivalistic instincts (maximizing personal resources, maximizing surviving progeny, eating as much as possible at any given sitting) that are no longer relevant to civilized society? We haven't been concious, social creatures for nearly as long as we were non-concious, survival-oriented animals. There just hasn't been enough time for those instincts to have disappeared. Heck, in some situations those instincts are great for surviving! Just ask a soldier.I don't think anyone's arguing that human social conciousness, to the degree that we express it, is not a unique trait. But under that veneer of civilization lies the animal nature that we all must generally control in order to be functional, social humans.

quote:

---

Finally. A quality answer without a "God-Bash". Thx Rrhain.

---

I can only think by quality, you mean an answer that doesn't bother you. Your suggestion in message 15 that your questions weren't answered is very much not true. Crashfrog directly addressed your two "unanswered" questions in message 9. Several others addressed the first of your unanswered questions by telling you that homosexuality is not limited to humans. Then Brian answered your second question again in message 18.In fact, you didn't reply to any of these responses, except by saying those responses didn't exist. It would have been interesting to see you take on Crashfrog's line of reasoning for why God is to blame from message 9, as it was plenty long enough to surely have places it could be attacked, but you ignored it. In fact, you have still ignored it, and now for a second time you have acted like that answer (and everyone else's except Rrhain's) didn't exist.I'm part of a very God-centered community of people, who love God and are completely devoted to helping one another live both by our conscience and by what we see as God's will, yet we have had this very discussion--why God would allow earth to be as it is. We are theists, and we most certainly believe that God, if he is Creator and omnipotent, is absolutely responsible for the way things are, so calling it "God's fault" is not just an atheist position.

I forgot something. God did tell Adam why he was not supposed to eat from the tree. He said that when Adam ate from it he would surely die.As for Adam's intelligence, how many infants do you find naming animals? Or lonley for the opposite sex?Look at Eve's response to the serpent. She obviously knew what God was talking about!I posted that "saw" thing entirly as a joke. I couldn't believe some of you guys were ready to debate the difference between a saw and a toy! (Oh no, here we go...!)

More specifically, he said "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (KJV)So, does that make God a liar? Because Adam didn't die that day, he died 900 years later or whatever.More interesting:

quote:

---

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

---

So the serpent is the one telling the truth! For they did become like god, knowing good and evil. Don't hang out with too many kids, do you? Kids come up with names for stuff. Generally they're stupid names, but still.Clearly Adam could talk - no one's saying he was infantile. But clearly he was as a child. Never underestimate my ability to take sarcasm at face value.

The death Adam and Eve experienced was the death of their perfect relationship with God.(Although physical death was a long term consequence of their disobedience).You told me that Adam was "like a day old". Sounds ifantile to me!Find me a day old that is lonely for the opposite sex and is giving animals names. And for those of you who say Adam didn't know any better, look again at Eve's response to the serpent. She knew better, and she came after Adam!If you read closely, the serpent told a half-truth (which is really a lie).